wat0n wrote:They do, but it also shows the DA in this case doesn't seem to be afraid of charging cops.
I assume that charging cops who are black and recent immigrants is a lot easier for the union to accept.
Because of systemic racism.
How do? The DA charged him, didn't he?
Not with the right charges. They, as I already showed, had set it up to get the murderer off the hook. And almost certainly colluded with the medical examiner.
Why has none of that been questioned?
When there's passive resistance? I highly doubt so. And I suspect that this will likely be removed from the policy as well.
But as it stands now, cops with a history of violence can use this, with the reasonable expectation that they will use it unwisely and unnecessarily risk the lives of citizens.
I think this is a rather condescending view of the public, don't you think?
The same public that elected Trump, re-elected Bush, and continues to ignore systemic racism?
That's a rather weak way to conclude that "structural racism" is to blame here. We might as well take the same data and conclude it's structural poverty or socioeconomic segregation, for example, since they also affect African Americans more than Whites (I actually find this more persuasive too). Furthermore, the source on shootings (the Mapping Police Violence Project) also shows that police killings of unarmed people shows a downward trend for both Blacks and Whites - a time trend that they didn't consider in the paper for some reason. I wonder what would happen if one included a time fixed effects.
There's the Fryer paper based on looking at incidents themselves (including whether the suspect was armed for instance) that undermines this one as well.
Structural poverty and socio-economic segregation are also probably correlated with structural racism.
And if there were a time effect, we would probably see that this sort of police impunity for killings and brutality would reduce over time as systemic racism also decreased.
I can not read NY Times articles usually, but since we are at the beginning of the month, I was able to read it. That study does not contradict the finding if this study at all.
Indeed they are just part of what delivering justice consists of. But that wasn't my point: My point is that since you can sue the city or the PD, you can demand them to name whoever gave the illegal orders.
Again, this assumes that you have evidence of illegal orders, which is so unlikely that it seems odd to use this as an argument.
Sure, it's as simple as reading the history of the militarization of policing in the US (and abroad for that matter) during the 20th century. So for instance the American police began to introduce automatic weapons as early as during the Great Depression.
How does this support the claim that militarisation is a reaction to an armed populace?
Who says they weren't being closely watched? They set a perimeter around the VA Capitol, and didn't let any armed people inside. A State of Emergency was also in place, and as I said a large police force was deployed.
Thankfully, the whole thing went peacefully, those carrying their guns didn't try to go into the Capitol and no repression was needed. They actually were more peaceful than the protests we've seen now.
So, they were able to address the demands of a heavily armed protest without using police brutality or their military hardware.
But they cannot do that with peaceful unarmed protesters.
Why? Please do elaborate.
At this point, I think people can read it for themselves.
And if anyone needs further evidence of why cops need to be disarmed and defunded, just watch the news.
But he didn't return the product, which is obviously something problematic for the clerks.
Are we now calling police because retail staff are annoyed at how a customer behaves? Is that the argument?
Why don't bodycams help to address systemic racism by putting police brutality on the spotlight?
Because police brutality is often an example of individual racism. Systemic racism occurs in more discreet ways, like police unions refusing to recognise and deal with individual racism in their ranks, to the extent that individual racists actually get institutional support.
And the store clerks tried talking to him, as you should be able to see in the video above.
Yes, and that does not matter.
Mr. Floyd had the cops called on him despite not doing anything illegal or violent, or threatening to do anything violent or criminal.