Policing In America

1. Police in America are poorly trained
2. Police in America are over armed
3. Policing in America overly focuses their efforts upon the black community
4. When taking into account 1 & 2, 3 becomes pretty deadly

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/u...tile.html?_r=0

So a couple of days ago the Castile trail came to an end. The Jury acquitted Officer Yanez on the charge of manslaughter. It appears that Yanez panicked and shot Castile because he thought Castile was reaching for his weapon. This is a bunch of horse shit. Castile was licensed to carry, and informed the officer of his weapon. Yanez lost control when Castile reached for his drivers license, as instructed. He made no efforts to diffuse the situation.

Of course the usual suspects are out in force. Castile may or may not have been using marijuana. There is also a rumor making the rounds that Castiles weapon was on his lap, which is totally false.

The NRA has basically had rift within itself. Despite the window dressing, the power brokers within that organization are hardcore law and order types who will back local police departments. They will set up a defense fund if you shoot someone in the back, but not if you get shot by a cop. Some lower level members have pointed out this hypocrisy and yet we still have crickets.

There is a systemic problem with policing in America. Local police departments have too much leeway and too little over sight. This affects all Americans negatively. However, Black Americans are killed by the police are more than double their share of the population. This is not a problem that affects all of us equally.

It's a problem that can only be rectified by the local communities themselves. The Federal Government cannot (logistically) oversee every police department in the country.

Yanez is simply a continuation of Rodney King. Willful deference to law and order at all costs. The reasoning behind this among American society is complex and steeped in lingering racism, and I am afraid that positive reforms will likely continue to arrive as a last minute reflex to racial riots.

Why haven't you mentioned the legal system as a problem? There are two separate issues here - the first deals with how stop this from happening in the future, and the second with how to make sure justice is served when it does happen.

I don't remember a single case when a police officer was convicted. Usually, they're not even charged.

In the UK, there is a lot tradition of community policing. I believe Clinton tried introducing it in 1994 to the USA. Has it had a positive effect or is it still not fully implemented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Why haven't you mentioned the legal system as a problem? There are two separate issues here - the first deals with how stop this from happening in the future, and the second with how to make sure justice is served when it does happen.

I don't remember a single case when a police officer was convicted. Usually, they're not even charged.

---

What can the legal system do when juries acquit police officers who are on camera pumping unarmed black men full of bullets?
Either you do away with juries or you must reform the heart of American culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Why haven't you mentioned the legal system as a problem? There are two separate issues here - the first deals with how stop this from happening in the future, and the second with how to make sure justice is served when it does happen.

I don't remember a single case when a police officer was convicted. Usually, they're not even charged.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

What can the legal system do when juries acquit police officers who are on camera pumping unarmed black men full of bullets?
Either you do away with juries or you must reform the heart of American culture.

---

Isn't this a consequence of the special immunities and authorities invested into the police? Often we can say in egregious cases like Castile's the officers failed to act according to training and guidelines, but these do not have normal legal force.

It usually takes the involvement of outright premeditated killing or profound organized corruption to convict an officer, whether on murder/manslaughter or other crimes. It's also why juries almost never even indict - the nature of the act by a police officer does not tend toward lawbreaking.

Police need some level of immunity or different standards to do their normal work effectively, and I don't know to say what changes in that respect should be applied to the current order specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

What can the legal system do when juries acquit police officers who are on camera pumping unarmed black men full of bullets?
Either you do away with juries or you must reform the heart of American culture.

---

That is certainly one possibility. I'm not going to say I have the answer right here, but it isn't identified as problem. That's what I find weird.

I remember an article I read that juries in US have convicted in over 80% of cases, while judges have done it in around 50%. Juries over-convict, but when it comes to police officers, they almost never convict. Jury system appears to be what is allowing racism and other issues to linger in America.

It might be one possible solution (removing juries) from a wider selection, but no one can work on a solution until the problem is acknowledged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

In the UK, there is a lot tradition of community policing. I believe Clinton tried introducing it in 1994 to the USA. Has it had a positive effect or is it still not fully implemented?

---

Would community police be that much better when the locality is awash in guns? If there's a high probability of encountering guns on your patrol, I'd imagine any police patrol would be on edge somewhat. There are lots of policing ideas that are possible here but not in the US because we don't have a gun culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Would community police be that much better when the locality is awash in guns? If there's a high probability of encountering guns on your patrol, I'd imagine any police patrol would be on edge somewhat. There are lots of policing ideas that are possible here but not in the US because we don't have a gun culture.

---

There is examples of it within the Free Syrian holdings. They intentionally do not have guns and it they get a warm response with the locals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39458062

Unless you are suggesting that the USA is worse than war-torn Syria in midst of a civil war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

There is examples of it within the Free Syrian holdings. They intentionally do not have guns and it they get a warm response with the locals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39458062

Unless you are suggesting that the USA is worse than war-torn Syria in midst of a civil war...

---

I suppose the opportunity is there, should they choose to, to demonstrate the principle in practice in limited areas, to see how things go. I doubt they will, and while police and community are both on edge and both sides are armed to the teeth, incidents like this will keep happening and juries will be sympathetic.

Police in the US are trained to protect themselves first, they go into a situation assuming they're going into combat.

Until Police training in the Us prioritises the lives of citizens over those of Police Officers there will be no change.

On the other hand, if that change comes about there will be a lot of dead Police officers. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Isn't this a consequence of the special immunities and authorities invested into the police? Often we can say in egregious cases like Castile's the officers failed to act according to training and guidelines, but these do not have normal legal force.

It usually takes the involvement of outright premeditated killing or profound organized corruption to convict an officer, whether on murder/manslaughter or other crimes. It's also why juries almost never even indict - the nature of the act by a police officer does not tend toward lawbreaking.

Police need some level of immunity or different standards to do their normal work effectively, and I don't know to say what changes in that respect should be applied to the current order specifically.

---

At even the highest levels, immunity has limitations. Contrary to Nixon just because the president does it, does not mean its legal. Now, someone like Strike would have a better knowledge of what the current limitations are for police, but I think common sense could be applied here that police obviously have a wide discretion to use various levels of force up to an including lethal granted that certain conditions don't apply.

What those conditions would be would need to be hammered out by people with a lot more knowledge of how police operate in the field and legal experts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Police in the US are trained to protect themselves first, they go into a situation assuming they're going into combat.

Until Police training in the Us prioritises the lives of citizens over those of Police Officers there will be no change.

On the other hand, if that change comes about there will be a lot of dead Police officers. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

---

I think you've got the point. Police officers have to stop to think they are soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

At even the highest levels, immunity has limitations. Contrary to Nixon just because the president does it, does not mean its legal. Now, someone like Strike would have a better knowledge of what the current limitations are for police, but I think common sense could be applied here that police obviously have a wide discretion to use various levels of force up to an including lethal granted that certain conditions don't apply.

What those conditions would be would need to be hammered out by people with a lot more knowledge of how police operate in the field and legal experts.

---

Qualified immunity applies throughout the executive, including law officers.

Quote:

---

For officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit, we have recognized the defense of “absolute immunity.” The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, and of judges, in their judicial functions, now is well settled. Our decisions also have extended absolute immunity to certain officials of the Executive Branch. These include prosecutors and similar officials, executive officers engaged in adjudicative functions, and the President of the United States. For executive officials in general, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm.

---

Qualified immunity applies especially to civil and civil rights suits:

Quote:

---

The Court then reexamined its earlier treatment of qualified immunity. Prior to this case, qualified or “good faith” immunity included both an objective and a subjective aspect. The subjective aspect involved determining whether the government actor in question took his “action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury.”7 This subjective determination typically would require discovery and testimony to establish whether malicious intention was present. Having to go through the costly process of discovery and trial, however, conflicted with the goal of qualified immunity to allow for the “dismissal of insubstantial lawsuits without trial.”

Recognizing this dilemma, the Court altered the test to determine whether qualified immunity was appropriate. The new test, as stated earlier, is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”9 By applying the reasonable person standard, the Supreme Court established, for the first time, a purely objective standard to determine whether granting a government official qualified immunity was appropriate.

While Harlow did not involve a law enforcement officer’s actions, the decision is significant because law enforcement officers are government officials who perform discretionary functions and may be protected by qualified immunity. This shield of immunity is an objective test designed to protect all but “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

---

Quote:

---

Even if the law is clearly established, the law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there was no constitutional violation in the first place. For example, in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, the deputies involved in a fatal high-speed pursuit were sued by the decedent’s parents for a due process violation.20 The alleged constitutional violation was due process because the decedent was not intentionally seized by the deputies, but, rather, accidentally struck by one of the deputies after the motorcycle being pursued crashed in front of the pursuing deputies. The decedent, in fact, had merely been a passenger on the motorcycle. The Supreme Court afforded the deputies qualified immunity because even when based on a favorable view of the plaintiffs’ allegations, there simply was no violation of due process. The court noted that to violate the Due Process Clause, the deputies had to intend to cause harm, and that had not been the case.21 Rather, the [deputy’s] “instinct was to do his job as a law enforcement officer, not to induce [the decedent’s] lawlessness, or to terrorize, cause harm, or kill.”22

---

Here's a side note on immunity conferred by being a federal officer or adjacent to federal operations.

Quote:

---

Lawyer Adam S. Hoffinger, who represented Horiuchi and Tanella, said the defense amounts to a simple “two-prong test: “Prong one, was it in the scope of his federal duties? And prong two, were those actions necessary and proper?”

If the shooting passes those tests, the officer is immune, Hoffinger said.

---

Quote:

---

“The fact is that [Kleinert] was working in a federal capacity and carrying out his federal duties,” Leavitt said. “So as long as he was acting in good faith, which he was, he is immune from state prosecution.”

---

I'm still searching for information on how immunity applies directly to questions of criminal, and not merely civil, litigation. To sum so far:

Quote:

---

As a general rule, police officers enjoy immunity from civil liability for conduct committed in the course of the
performance of their duties. Unless the facts suggest an exception, officers are entitled to pre-trial dismissal of civil suits
rising out the official conduct. The immunity extends even to instances where the officer’s conduct is unconstitutional
or otherwise unlawful as long as the conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have been aware.” The “clearly established” law need not be directly on point but
must place the question beyond debate so that the immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.”

---

So, much more than racist juries it's the legal structure that needs to be investigated. Juries acquit or don't indict primarily because they follow the legal advice given to them, legal advice which in our current framework is likely entirely correct and appropriate.

Still digesting what you wrote Monty, thanks for grabbing that info.

Can't help but laugh at the last quote though. If we can't call the death of an unarmed man sitting in a car doing what he was told to do, "plainly incompetent", then I don't know what reality even is anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Still digesting what you wrote Monty, thanks for grabbing that info.

Can't help but laugh at the last quote though. If we can't call the death of an unarmed man sitting in a car doing what he was told to do, "plainly incompetent", then I don't know what reality even is anymore.

---

Quote:

---

“protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.”

---

I guess it also could mean ignorantia juris neminem excusat only applies if you are not acting in capacity of an executive agent. Maybe Paul Ryan really is carrying water for Trump that way.

It's not going to get any better with the Kebler elf sitting atop the Justice Department. He will be shutting down federal oversight through consent decrees, and wants to double down on the war on drugs.

One radical solution: have special "Police Courts" in the same way the Military have "military courts" for death by cop cases, possibly run / overseen by the FBI. Not to be soft, but to be hard - unloading a clip into people under almost any circumstances is not legal. Having local jurors doesn't appear to be working.

And yes, I doubt that'd ever be implemented.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

One radical solution: have special "Police Courts" in the same way the Military have "military courts"

---

Definitely interesting idea. It is a common narrative that American soldiers are held to much higher standards than American law enforcement is.

I haven't really done thorough research on that subjects, but anecdotal evidence doesn't support the claim.

Case 1: American marine killed Romanian pop singer in Romania in a traffic accident, most likely under influence. He was whisked away to US, got a letter of reprimand.

Case 2: American pilots kill 20 people in Italy. The plane sliced the cable car cable while flying lower than allowed. In the end, pilot and navigator were found guilty because they destroyed the evidence and discharged.

Case 3: Dropped charges against 6 soldiers while one got acquitted after they murdered over 20 civilians in Iraq.

... and so on...

It appears that modus operandi is to stall for time, and to acquit or give very light sentences after the story gets old.

I wouldn't trust police policing itself would lead to more trials or higher rates of convictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I haven't really done thorough research on that subjects, but anecdotal evidence doesn't support the claim.

Case 1: American marine killed Romanian pop singer in Romania in a traffic accident, most likely under influence. He was whisked away to US, got a letter of reprimand.

Case 2: American pilots kill 20 people in Italy. The plane sliced the cable car cable while flying lower than allowed. In the end, pilot and navigator were found guilty because they destroyed the evidence and discharged.

Case 3: Dropped charges against 6 soldiers while one got acquitted after they murdered over 20 civilians in Iraq.

... and so on...

It appears that modus operandi is to stall for time, and to acquit or give very light sentences after the story gets old.

I wouldn't trust police policing itself would lead to more trials or higher rates of convictions.

---

The rules of engagement and comportment on paper are certainly stricter. I would be interested to see a survey on how the military handles crimes against civilians (whether American, host countries', or those within operational theaters) vs. crimes between soldiers or against the organization. There are several administrative and sub-legal tiers and provisions for punishing soldiers or modifying their behavior, but for the three classes of ligitative courts-martial, including the ultimate category of "general" court-martial which applies in cases of serious crimes and can deliver the death penalty, the conviction rates are at least as high as with civilian counterparts, being 90+%. It may even be that not enough cases go to the military courts after being 'settled quietly' or hushed up, but the justice framework itself is fairly robust after being reformed following WW2.

So even if it's not enough, in practice and on paper it's stricter than what police are subject to.

One important thing to note about military justice (re: Rory's comment on enforcing similar structures or standards onto police) is that while it does incorporate civilian (federal) law, it has a legal structure of its own, which the Supreme Court has recognized as a "separate society" with distinct provisions and standards. So it may be better to assimilate police through legislation closer toward a general civilian model, rather than delineate another separate society when the conditions of war are so different from those of domestic policing.

*Interesting note on courts-martial: if the defendant elects to be tried before a jury of soldiers (rather than just the judge), the jury can convict on a 2/3 vote. Civilian juries of course must convict unanimously; a unanimous vote is only required in the military when the sentencing involves the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The rules of engagement and comportment on paper are certainly stricter. I would be interested to see a survey on how the military handles crimes against civilians (whether American, host countries', or those within operational theaters) vs. crimes between soldiers or against the organization. There are several administrative and sub-legal tiers and provisions for punishing soldiers or modifying their behavior, but for the three classes of ligitative courts-martial, including the ultimate category of "general" court-martial which applies in cases of serious crimes and can deliver the death penalty, the conviction rates are at least as high as with civilian counterparts, being 90+%. It may even be that not enough cases go to the military courts after being 'settled quietly' or hushed up, but the justice framework itself is fairly robust after being reformed following WW2.

So even if it's not enough, in practice and on paper it's stricter than what police are subject to.

One important thing to note about military justice (re: Rory's comment on enforcing similar structures or standards onto police) is that while it does incorporate civilian (federal) law, it has a legal structure of its own, which the Supreme Court has recognized as a "separate society" with distinct provisions and standards. So it may be better to assimilate police through legislation closer toward a general civilian model, rather than delineate another separate society when the conditions of war are so different from those of domestic policing.

*Interesting note on courts-martial: if the defendant elects to be tried before a jury of soldiers (rather than just the judge), the jury can convict on a 2/3 vote. Civilian juries of course must convict unanimously; a unanimous vote is only required in the military when the sentencing involves the death penalty.

---

Probably because a soldier's job is to kill people, which is anathema to civilian life. The only mistake a soldier when performing that job is killing the wrong people. That's a fundamentally different mindset to practically all civilian occupations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Probably because a soldier's job is to kill people, which is anathema to civilian life. The only mistake a soldier when performing that job is killing the wrong people. That's a fundamentally different mindset to practically all civilian occupations.

---

That should be the case, but given the amount of military hardware the police in America have the lines appear a lot more blurred (but then, everyone has access to almost military grade hardware).

~:smoking:

Maybe there is a reason more blacks get shot. Must be racism of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Maybe there is a reason more blacks get shot. Must be racism of course.

---

Fragony with his hallmark hinted-racism-yet-ambigous-enough-to-back-out comment straight out of the alt right playbook.

Not backing out of anything, for many blacks youths gang-culture is simply a way of life so they are more likely to be shot.

...

Drugs is pretty universal, but gang-culture is not (you could bring up motorgangs of course), but in general gang-culture is more of a black thing. I can't take these Black life Muppets and social-justice millenials very serious

Define "gang culture".
Is it comparable to Durch culture or is it the equivalent of cheese culture?
Does everyone in a community have it, is it a sub-culture and where and which people do have it?

Do we make raps about cheese?

https://youtu.be/pXc8CbSoPsw

Yeah, on that note, very fitting for this thread, even if you may struggle with the language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjG22Gbo6U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Drugs is pretty universal, but gang-culture is not (you could bring up motorgangs of course), but in general gang-culture is more of a black thing. I can't take these Black life Muppets and social-justice millenials very serious

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_of_New_York

19th century America, that changes the debate completily! Suddenly todays problems just dissapeares *poof*

Might seem clever to you but I think it's dumb. It's the same as assuming that Germany never changed and are all closet nazi's. Today is now. Problems are now. By all means take the vaccination called political correctness and relativation if reality disturbs you too much

Awesome movie by the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_of_New_York

---

Thank you very much. Now I have to watch that again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Thank you very much. Now I have to watch that again.

---

Absolutily a must, Butcher Bill is an awesome villain, truly scary

I do not believe that America's black community's issues will be solved by an overhaul of America's police service. I do not even believe it will improve their situation by a significant amount. If anything it is an excuse to deflect blame and refuse badly needed self reflection and internal community reform.

I do however think that an overhaul is sorely needed by society at large. The American political scene is frequently dancing back and forth over the boiling point and maintaining the ability of the police to counter and contain civil unrest is vital. As it is the chronic inexperience and ill discipline of parts the American police force is itself a frequent instigator of the very civil unrest it is tasked to prevent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

19th century America, that changes the debate completily! Suddenly todays problems just dissapeares *poof*

Might seem clever to you but I think it's dumb. It's the same as assuming that Germany never changed and are all closet nazi's. Today is now. Problems are now. By all means take the vaccination called political correctness and relativation if reality disturbs you too much

Awesome movie by the way

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why?

---

Why ask me, political-correctness isn't exactly my thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why ask me, political-correctness isn't exactly my thing

---

The questions are more like why did these white people have gang culture?
Why do whites from the Balkans/Russia/Eastern Europe not count as having a gang culture (when they are in gangs or all of them?)?
Why do the blacks (partially or all?) in the US have a gang culture now?
Why is this rarely said about blacks in some other countries?
And why are these questions linked to political correctness?

I look at artforms and expressions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I look at artforms and expressions.

---

So you would agree that white people can't dance?

Total faillure comes in many ways. I am a really good dancer by the way I almost win every contest every time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Total faillure comes in many ways. I am a really good dancer by the way I almost win every contest every time

---

So you have a gang culture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So you have a gang culture?

---

Because I like dancing with pretty women?

There is nothing that will ever make me respect anything that doesn't suit me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I do however think that an overhaul is sorely needed by society at large. The American political scene is frequently dancing back and forth over the boiling point and maintaining the ability of the police to counter and contain civil unrest is vital. As it is the chronic inexperience and ill discipline of parts the American police force is itself a frequent instigator of the very civil unrest it is tasked to prevent.

---

This unfortunately is the difficult part to do. How does one get the economically left behind to buy into society, especially one that doesn't seem to want them? Unless people from the bottom of society try and join the police force too it will remain an organization of the oppressive other, the Police too will see distrust from a community that doesn't seem them as a force of good and often overreact. Police unfortunately only see the problems and are not trained to be social workers too.

We need to overhaul education so that poor communities don't have poor schools. The schools need to guide kids toward some sort of employment instead of just general education. Civics needs to be taught a bit more often so that people understand that their are legitimate ways to address problems and so that they understand what a good citizen should contribute to society.
Under/un-educated young men of any ethnicity will tend to form gangs and delve into crime when legitimate work for their set of skills and education will never result in the type of status, wealth, and 'respect' that strive for.
Who wants to be the chump working the dead end job for minimum wage when being a gangster will result in much easier gains plus a sense of actual belonging.

I'd say another thing to overhaul would be the prison system. It shouldn't be a finishing school that accepts minor drug users and pumps out unemployable gangsters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Maybe there is a reason more blacks get shot. Must be racism of course.

---

Approaching 30,000 posts without evolving. Here we see a snowflake in his natural habitat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Approaching 30,000 posts without evolving. Here we see a snowflake in his natural habitat.

---

I am perfectly capable of completily changing my mind, did that many times. Need a good reason to do it

edit, internet is back. If you look in my posting history you will find a different person, basicly an extreme-rightist of the worst kind. That's all gone I don't see things like that anymore life caught up. I have absolutily evolved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Approaching 30,000 posts without evolving. Here we see a snowflake in his natural habitat.

---

His spelling is getting marginally worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

basicly an extreme-rightist of the worst kind

---

Did you actually go around waving a Nazi nationalist proud homeland loving flag and throw fecal matter at Jewish Muslim children immigrants leftist agitators? I can't really imagine it getting much worse.

Now I only dislike you

Saw this last night on PBS, good report on the change in policing in Camden, Pennsylvania.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/happe...g-build-trust/

Quote:

---

Historically one of the country's most impoverished and violent cities, Camden, New Jersey, has been working to rebuild its police force from the ground up, recruiting officers from its mostly Latino and African-American community. The new procedures aim to bring police into closer face-to-face interactions with the people they serve in order to foster good relationships. Hari Sreenivasan reports.

Since transitioning from the old force to the new in 2014, the number of murders dropped by almost 70 percent, burglaries by 27 percent, robberies 33 percent, and even an eye-catching 143 percent spike in rapes that the department attributes to increased reporting, as well as new broader federal guidelines on what constitutes rape.

Overall, the city’s crime numbers are the lowest in decades. Those are impressive statistics for any police department, and residents don’t dispute them. But some say seeing them in a report vs. feeling the difference every day are two different things.

---

Makes perfect sense, police from their own community won't be seen as hostile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Police in the US are trained to protect themselves first, they go into a situation assuming they're going into combat.

Until Police training in the Us prioritises the lives of citizens over those of Police Officers there will be no change.

On the other hand, if that change comes about there will be a lot of dead Police officers. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

---

My wife, years past, was part of a police training academy as staff.

Police are NOT trained to protect themselves first. Their training centers on protecting the general public first, themselves second, and the alleged perpetrator third.
Primary in that training is an absolute priority to NOT get your gun taken away from you.
The police are then trained to respond with the absolute minimum level of force needed to protect the public and make an arrest.
The official training provided officers, PFH, is very much in line with the goals you state. The issues of concern come after that...

Police academies vary, but are typically 13-14 weeks of instruction. This is followed by a period of tutelage OJT under a training officer or several weeks or months.
By contrast the "simplest" job in the military [infantry] requires the same total training time (10 weeks basic, 4 weeks AIT). Thus an army infantry warfighter receives the same level of training provided to a police officer, despite the fact that the job of infantry soldier is conceptually MUCH easier with fewer task types than a police officer and infantry receive much more direct instruction and supervision until they achieve NCO status. @Strike For The South wasn't claiming police to be untrained, but that they are undertrained given the complexity of their task/purpose.

AFTER they exit the academy, they go on the street and learn how to police from other police....and the lessons learned are not always aligned with the standards promulgated in their academy training. The mental shortcuts and "what we really look for" standards may well undercut the official training standards. This is accompanied, of course, by all of the natural efforts by the new officer to fit into their organization (See Jablin on Organizational entry and assimilation by the individual). The official training can easily end up taking a back seat. Thus, police CULTURE is the real source of concern -- and it may well alter, undercut or even obviate all of the official training in some localities.

You could also make a good case that, unless they are assigned as a training officer at the academy, they do not receive enough refresher training in appropriate escalation of violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

My wife, years past, was part of a police training academy as staff.

Police are NOT trained to protect themselves first. Their training centers on protecting the general public first, themselves second, and the alleged perpetrator third.
Primary in that training is an absolute priority to NOT get your gun taken away from you.
The police are then trained to respond with the absolute minimum level of force needed to protect the public and make an arrest.
The official training provided officers, PFH, is very much in line with the goals you state. The issues of concern come after that...

Police academies vary, but are typically 13-14 weeks of instruction. This is followed by a period of tutelage OJT under a training officer or several weeks or months.
By contrast the "simplest" job in the military [infantry] requires the same total training time (10 weeks basic, 4 weeks AIT). Thus an army infantry warfighter receives the same level of training provided to a police officer, despite the fact that the job of infantry soldier is conceptually MUCH easier with fewer task types than a police officer and infantry receive much more direct instruction and supervision until they achieve NCO status. @Strike For The South wasn't claiming police to be untrained, but that they are undertrained given the complexity of their task/purpose.

AFTER they exit the academy, they go on the street and learn how to police from other police....and the lessons learned are not always aligned with the standards promulgated in their academy training. The mental shortcuts and "what we really look for" standards may well undercut the official training standards. This is accompanied, of course, by all of the natural efforts by the new officer to fit into their organization (See Jablin on Organizational entry and assimilation by the individual). The official training can easily end up taking a back seat. Thus, police CULTURE is the real source of concern -- and it may well alter, undercut or even obviate all of the official training in some localities.

You could also make a good case that, unless they are assigned as a training officer at the academy, they do not receive enough refresher training in appropriate escalation of violence.

---

One thing to note is that infantry are trained in a total environment, whereas police inductees (I believe) get to go home at the end of the day. But that's just to be pedantic.

In the conflict between "Black Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter/Blue Lives Matter", to my surprise it turns out* comparatively few have thought to deploy "Civilian Lives Matter" as a rejoinder.

*At least by the metric of Google Search results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am perfectly capable of completily changing my mind, did that many times. Need a good reason to do it

edit, internet is back. If you look in my posting history you will find a different person, basicly an extreme-rightist of the worst kind. That's all gone I don't see things like that anymore life caught up. I have absolutily evolved.

---

Did Anders have any influence on your shift towards the left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Did Anders have any influence on your shift towards the left?

---

Me to the left you kidding me, but yeah somewhat. The reactions of people trying to relativate it even more. There is no 'yes but' for me. That doesn't mean I don't dispise the left and the EU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Me to the left you kidding me, but yeah somewhat. The reactions of people trying to relativate it even more. There is no 'yes but' for me. That doesn't mean I don't dispise the left and the EU

---

Was just poking fun with my choice of words. I don't think we had any doubts you are still anti-EU.

Just be carefull and considerate, it's an open wound for Norway that isn't going to heal very soon

I meant to post this in the Charlottesville thread but it is locked.

153 years ago today Robert Edward Lee surrendered to Ulysses S Grant at Appomattox, the civil war ended, and the Republic was restored.


It would be another 99 for Black Americans to receive their full rights (on paper). It is the nations greatest black mark and it is the fulcrum upon which all domestic policy still turns. From redlining to police violence, there are vestiges of the salve state that continue to work all around us. Vestiges that we should work to end. A great first step is listening, don't interrupt, just listen. A great second step is reflection.

America is disconcerting and uncertain times. Uncertainty can lead to fear. Fear makes people want control. That desire for control manifests itself in pain and hatred. It is difficult to excise fear, but we must try.

.I was reading various news yesterday and I came across two stories that made my eyes roll back into my skull.


The first was the Chicago PDs use of bait trucks. The idea is to park a truck in the neighborhood, open the back, and watch to see who comes and takes the goods, in this case shoes. This is not a new idea. The use of bait cars, cars with GPS in them has been around for a while. What happened here kind of takes that a step further, like having the car door open and keys in the ignition. Of course that caught some people, whose lives were most certainly now be ruined because of a totally ginned up scenario by the cops.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45142145


The second, more egregious story was about the Cincinnati police tasering an 11 year old girl because the off duty cop thought she was stealing something at the grocery store. Tasering an 11 year old.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/us/ci...rnd/index.html

Is it really fear, maybe it's dependance? If you are willingly in a rubbered-pavement society maybe there is something wrong with you yourself. Look at it this way, what if every junction has a counterpart reacting to it. What you think of it means nothing so you can go on all about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Is it really fear, maybe it's dependance? If you are willingly in a rubbered-pavement society maybe there is something wrong with you yourself. Look at it this way, what if every junction has a counterpart reacting to it. What you think of it means nothing so you can go on all about it

---

You might be right, maybe if you live in an upper-class neighborhood with high-quality, safe and quiet rubber pavements that reduce friction (http://rubberpavements.org/Videos.html), maybe it's your own fault that you are so afraid. For every penny you make, someone is missing half a penny and will likely react to it. And they'll hang you in a tree no matter how much you cry about "class warfare".

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You might be right, maybe if you live in an upper-class neighborhood with high-quality, safe and quiet rubber pavements that reduce friction (http://rubberpavements.org/Videos.html), maybe it's your own fault that you are so afraid. For every penny you make, someone is missing half a penny and will likely react to it. And they'll hang you in a tree no matter how much you cry about "class warfare".

Good point.

---

We are all liiving is a higher class society, we all here didn't die at birth, every single one of us here. Circumstances could be different of course, we did not all get shot of course, I kinda did I don't recommend getting shot. Whatever my background, you are wrong by the way I live in a very modest apartment, I look pretty good I'll admit that much as for having a headstart on you but I do not know what you look like. I could even be smarter than you, on top of that. But that's just all really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

We are all liiving is a higher class society, we all here didn't die at birth, every single one of us here. Circumstances could be different of course, we did not all get shot of course, I kinda did I don't recommend getting shot. Whatever my background, you are wrong by the way I live in a very modest apartment, I look pretty good I'll admit that much as for having a headstart on you but I do not know what you look like. I could even be smarter than you, on top of that. But that's just all really.

---

I know you're smarter than me because I didn't even know we were talking about you in a thread called "Policing in America". All this time I thought you were dutch. :shrug:
Of course being alive is the best definition I've ever heard for a higher class society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

We are all liiving is a higher class society, we all here didn't die at birth, every single one of us here. Circumstances could be different of course, we did not all get shot of course, I kinda did I don't recommend getting shot. Whatever my background, you are wrong by the way I live in a very modest apartment, I look pretty good I'll admit that much as for having a headstart on you but I do not know what you look like. I could even be smarter than you, on top of that. But that's just all really.

---

No one who is alive in the world today died at birth.*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*Carving out near-death experiences or temporary clinical death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No one who is alive in the world today died at birth.*

---

It's a genius idea, if you apply it correctly, there is per definition no poverty on earth anymore. That's one big problem solved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's a genius idea, if you apply it correctly, there is per definition no poverty on earth anymore. That's one big problem solved!

---

In a way, we got you to ponder about it after all and aren't we all better for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

In a way, we got you to ponder about it after all and aren't we all better for it

---

No, don't forget that I'm the idiot here...