Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 68

Thread: Policing In America

  1. #1
    Apr 04-Nov 11 Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,281

    Default 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.
    “I was not designed to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” -Thoreau

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  2. #2
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  3. #3
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.

  4. #4
    Mr Self Important Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,643
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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?
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" - Daryl Davis
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  5. #5
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    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.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:



  6. #6

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 06-18-2017 at 10:12.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  7. #7
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,701

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Mr Self Important Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,643
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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...
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" - Daryl Davis
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  10. #10
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,701

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,779

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  12. #12
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    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.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    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.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  14. #14

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    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.

    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:


    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.”
    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.


    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.
    “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:

    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.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 06-19-2017 at 15:40.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  15. #15
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    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.
    “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.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  17. #17
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,160

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  18. #18
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,148

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  19. #19

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  20. #20
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 06-26-2017 at 00:30.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  22. #22
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,701

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    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.

    Member thankful for this post:



  23. #23
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,148

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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).

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  24. #24
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Policing In America

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

  25. #25
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,421

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Quote Originally Posted by Fragony View Post
    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.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  26. #26
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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.

  27. #27
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Policing In America

    And for many whites, drug culture is their way of life. Caucasians just love opioids
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  28. #28
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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

  29. #29
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,456

    Default Re: Policing In America

    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?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  30. #30
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Policing In America

    Do we make raps about cheese?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO