|
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 March 29 2018 21:40 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2018 18:20 iamthedave wrote:
So this Stephon Clark killing... is it as egregious as it sounds? It sounds like the cops just executed a random black guy in his grandmother's backyard. Or is there another element I'm not seeing in reports? It's as egregious as it sounds. Even if you believe everything the police say, it's still obscenely bad. In before the officers go free because 'Murica. Another reason why there is a significant downside to having police officers carry guns at all times. Why is anyone getting away from shooting someone for "suspicion og being armed"? Not even soldiers abroad are protected like that. Because the US decided that the threshold for lethal force is "the officer feels slightly threatened".
|
On March 29 2018 21:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:40 Slydie wrote:On March 29 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2018 18:20 iamthedave wrote:
So this Stephon Clark killing... is it as egregious as it sounds? It sounds like the cops just executed a random black guy in his grandmother's backyard. Or is there another element I'm not seeing in reports? It's as egregious as it sounds. Even if you believe everything the police say, it's still obscenely bad. In before the officers go free because 'Murica. Another reason why there is a significant downside to having police officers carry guns at all times. Why is anyone getting away from shooting someone for "suspicion og being armed"? Not even soldiers abroad are protected like that. Because the US decided that the threshold for lethal force is "the officer feels slightly threatened".
Nope. The threshold by now is: "The officer was able to describe a scenario afterwards, in which he could have, under very special circumstances, felt threatened"
|
But the US military has a far higher threshold. As does the general "civilian" population for "exerting" lethal force. It is the US police force that is the anomaly. It appears to be distinctively an American policing problem than generally an American cultural problem.
|
Damn, i was stopped in Germany 2 weeks ago due to an irregularity with my license plate. It took me a few seconds to realize they meant me and, as i was standing at traffic lights in the middl of the road at the time, i then proceeded to drive the car past the police to halt it at the side of the road to let traffic pass. If i were african american and in the states doing that, i might be dead now...
|
On March 29 2018 21:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But the US military has a far higher threshold. As does the general "civilian" population for "exerting" lethal force. It is the US police force that is the anomaly. It appears to be distinctively an American policing problem than generally an American cultural problem.
it's an american cultural problem in that the american people, via the jury trials of police officers, tend to be very lenient toward them when suhc occurs, whereas they are not similarly lenient toward civilians acting in that way.
I imagine that if US military cases in this area were handled by civilian jury trials, they'd get off far lighter than they currently do.
|
I think you guys are inadvertently coming around to understanding why I say "abolish the police". As an organization (rather than a functional social role) the police are a bad entity.
People that terrified and incapable of handling a situation like that simply shouldn't be given the ability to roam society armed with a gun, and a statistically unjustifiable freedom from accountability.
On March 29 2018 21:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But the US military has a far higher threshold. As does the general "civilian" population for "exerting" lethal force. It is the US police force that is the anomaly. It appears to be distinctively an American policing problem than generally an American cultural problem. it's an american cultural problem in that the american people, via the jury trials of police officers, tend to be very lenient toward them when suhc occurs, whereas they are not similarly lenient toward civilians acting in that way. I imagine that if US military cases in this area were handled by civilian jury trials, they'd get off far lighter than they currently do.
Pretty sure that's the point. Soldiers aren't trained to police, they are trained to kill. When a force dedicated to teaching people how to kill is more stringent internally and externally about killing people than an institution 'dedicated' to 'protecting and serving' US constitutionally protected civilians, it's not just a culture issue, but systemic and institutional one.
The police as an institution must be systematically torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. Every aspect top to bottom has been corrupted to point in which their nominal function is barely even nominal any more.
|
On March 29 2018 21:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But the US military has a far higher threshold. As does the general "civilian" population for "exerting" lethal force. It is the US police force that is the anomaly. It appears to be distinctively an American policing problem than generally an American cultural problem. Yes, it has been mentioned many times in the past that a soldier in hostile territory has a higher threshold for lethal force then a police officer on US soil.
And still there is no political will for police reform.
Welcome to America, enjoy your freedom.
|
On March 29 2018 21:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But the US military has a far higher threshold. As does the general "civilian" population for "exerting" lethal force. It is the US police force that is the anomaly. It appears to be distinctively an American policing problem than generally an American cultural problem. it's an american cultural problem in that the american people, via the jury trials of police officers, tend to be very lenient toward them when suhc occurs, whereas they are not similarly lenient toward civilians acting in that way. I imagine that if US military cases in this area were handled by civilian jury trials, they'd get off far lighter than they currently do.
Yeah, this country has a big problem with hero worship.
|
On March 29 2018 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think you guys are inadvertently coming around to understanding why I say "abolish the police". As an organization (rather than a functional social role) the police are a bad entity.
People that terrified and incapable of handling a situation like that simply shouldn't be given the ability to roam society armed with a gun, and a statistically unjustifiable freedom from accountability. Again, your use of a term that will instantly put everyone off of any point you might want to make.
You want large scale sweeping police reform, so say that instead.
|
On March 29 2018 21:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think you guys are inadvertently coming around to understanding why I say "abolish the police". As an organization (rather than a functional social role) the police are a bad entity.
People that terrified and incapable of handling a situation like that simply shouldn't be given the ability to roam society armed with a gun, and a statistically unjustifiable freedom from accountability. Again, your use of a term that will instantly put everyone off of any point you might want to make. You want large scale sweeping police reform, so say that instead.
Police as an intuition don't need 'sweeping reform' they need a full tear down and rebuild with entirely new leadership, metrics, and goals.
The new police would be nearly unrecognizable in comparison to what we have now. So I don't think it's an overstatement at all. And if the rhetoric puts one off, they weren't ever getting on board in the first place.
|
You could abolish the police and set up a new police.
|
On March 29 2018 21:55 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:51 zlefin wrote:On March 29 2018 21:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But the US military has a far higher threshold. As does the general "civilian" population for "exerting" lethal force. It is the US police force that is the anomaly. It appears to be distinctively an American policing problem than generally an American cultural problem. it's an american cultural problem in that the american people, via the jury trials of police officers, tend to be very lenient toward them when suhc occurs, whereas they are not similarly lenient toward civilians acting in that way. I imagine that if US military cases in this area were handled by civilian jury trials, they'd get off far lighter than they currently do. Yeah, this country has a big problem with hero worship.
It comes from all those years of police TV shows depicting the police to be good, hard working people against a violent world without addressing the rot in some police departments.
|
On March 29 2018 21:59 IgnE wrote:
You could abolish the police and set up a new police.
I don't think you believe it can be done, there have been some pretty horrible police forces around during human history which have still been better than no police at all. Holding the officers responsible according to public perception of justice and not having the police investigate themselves in cases like that would be a good start.
|
Setting up a public system of accountability that is immune to police union influence/bullying is indeed a great place to start.
|
On March 29 2018 11:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 08:09 A3th3r wrote:On March 29 2018 08:03 Excludos wrote:
Holy shit another one.. Is this how Trump runs his businesses as well? By firing everyone in turn? How has he not consistently gone bankrupt-oh wait nvm. Trump is by no means a class act, but the president is in some way a reflection of what's going on in the people here in 2018, so, ya, I guess there are a lot of trashy businesspeople that exist in America right now so what do you do. The VP, Pence, is a class act, so that's something. Trump definitely "fails his way to success," just like they tell you to do in the book "How to Win Friends & Influence People." Super homophobic, caused an HIV outbreak, and John Oliver did a Last Week Tonight special recently on him (spoilered below), which completely dismantles any notion that Mike Pence is a good guy. In some ways, he's worse than Trump. + Show Spoiler +
Oh he is much worse than Trump, and worse yet there's a chance he'll be more effective at getting his ridiculous agenda pushed through.
That doesn't mean I support "not going after Trump because Pence is worse" tho as I keep seeing popping up as an excuse from various people. You still go after the bad guy even if there's a worse guy behind him waiting to take up the reins. If you don't it's just always going to be a cluster-fest of "but what if something worse comes along". (And that's not a slippery slope argument because it would already be in the slope)
|
Pence's record as a public servant contains very little to support the notion that he's anything remotely like a competent administrator, I think fears of Pence stepping into the presidency ready to cause conservative havoc are overblown.
|
On March 29 2018 22:20 farvacola wrote:
Pence's record as a public servant contains very little to support the notion that he's anything remotely like a competent administrator, I think fears of Pence stepping into the presidency ready to cause conservative havoc are overblown.
I don't think most people fear his administrative competency as much as the mask he wears. Trumps selfish idiocy is stamped on his forehead. Pence looks and politely acts like a competent empathetic human being when you ignore the policy he advocates.
The fear is that matched with folks like Manchin they could do things like pour gas on the drug war and pass it off as empathy.
|
On March 29 2018 22:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 22:20 farvacola wrote:
Pence's record as a public servant contains very little to support the notion that he's anything remotely like a competent administrator, I think fears of Pence stepping into the presidency ready to cause conservative havoc are overblown. I don't think most people fear his administrative competency as much as the mask he wears. Trumps selfish idiocy is stamped on his forehead. Pence looks and politely acts like a competent empathetic human being when you ignore the policy he advocates. The fear is that matched with folks like Manchin they could do things like pour gas on the drug war and pass it off as empathy.
Exactly this. I don't for a second he's going to be more competent. But I do believe he's going to be more successful in getting his incompetent agendas pushed through.
|
And "competent administrator" is relative in this case. You don't really have to be competent per se to be more competent than Trump.
Edit: Oh, and by "competent" i mean "get something done" regardless of the merit of that something by itself. You can be competent and still only get really shitty stuff done.
|
Yes but this threateningly "more competent than supremely incompetent" facade only exists as long as Pence is able to stand there and say absolutely nothing. If he were to take the presidential reigns, that'd change very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
