Pants-of-dog wrote:And this is how systemic racism works. One racist person in the justice system does something wrong, and the supposedly good non-racists look the other way.
I see no reason why would anyone want to dump the presumption of innocence and apply mob justice in general. Even when it comes elected officials, go figure.
The USA has a sad history with this regard, particularly when it comes to African Americans.
Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, that is the absolute minimum.
Absolutely.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I do not think black people should have to wait for the majority to stop being racist in order to enjoy the basic rights that they supposedly already have.
So no, I do not want to impose my ideology. I want to impose the ideology that the constitution and bill of rights defines.
Then go ahead and press a legal case that the criminal justice system isn't respecting the American Constitution. It's how school segregation was outlawed so I don't see why this should be impossible.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Systemic racism can be correlated with police brutality, and at the same time, police bias can be observed in beatings and not shootings. These two facts are not mutually exclusive.
It can, but it would then undermine the claim in the other paper which claims police killings (which are largely by shooting) are due to systemic racism. That's why you shouldn't make inference about individuals (including individual abuses by the police) using solely aggregate data - such data can be useful for using controls for analyzing individuals but all sorts of stuff can happen with aggregates. I would also add that the other paper doesn't even consider non-fatal interactions between the police and civilians, another weakness since it's not considering the overall interactions between the police and civilians.
And you can even go father than that, and start including other data that's not present in either paper. I suspect that as you go forward and begin to introduce other controls, the racial (and also the socioeconomic) angle starts becoming less relevant compared to the individual interactions.
I hope that after this, there will be a drive for more transparency on these matters. That would be a good development and would also allow for much needed research since data is sparser than it should be (there aren't even somewhat detailed official statistics on police killings).
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt the police will end up investigating all the episodes of their own brutality and their own attempts to obstruct investigations into their brutality.
That would be irrational, and directly against their own self interest.
No, but they may be investigated by other agencies and they would be forced to provide the information as part of the discovery process if they don't take on that responsibility on their own. If bodycam use is obligatory by law, for instance, then they would face liability for not enforcing the law. The commanders responsible for enforcement could also face prosecution since interfering with the discovery process is a serious offense.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I want you to quote the text that supports your claim that the militarisation of police forces has been in reaction to the arming of the population.
Sure:
Wikipedia wrote:During the early 20th century, police departments in the United States adopted several military innovations such as centralized chains of command, professionalization (training and discipline), military operations and tactics (in particular, colonial counterinsurgency tactics), "open-order" units, and counterinsurgency information-gathering techniques.[36] Many of these reforms were influenced by practices from the Philippine–American War and subsequent U.S. occupation of the Philippines.[36] An influential advocate for these police reforms was August Vollmer, who has been described as the "father of modern policing."[36] Vollmer devised syllabi which were used in police training courses.[36]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as police departments in cities such as Kansas City, Missouri[40] and Kenosha, Wisconsin,[41] began deploying automatic weapons, including the Thompson submachine gun, and armored cars in the 1920s and 1930s.
George Fletcher Chandler, a veteran of the Pancho Villa Expedition and the first Superintendent of the New York State Police, was an early advocate of law enforcement officers wearing their weapons exposed on the outside of their uniforms.[42]
Experts believes that police militarization was escalated in the 1950s and 1960s, an era in which race riots and anti-war protests were common in many U.S. cities. Some believe that the seeming success of officers armed with military-style weapons and deployed to curtail the 1965 Watts riots, a six-day race riot sparked by conflicts with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) that killed 34 people, gave way to the trend of arming and equipping law enforcement officers with battlefield weapons.[43] Joy Rohde, a professor at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy, has published research indicating that "militarization is a mindset ... is a tendency to see the world through the lens of national security, a tendency to exaggerate existing threats." Rohde traces "the origins of modern militarized policing" to the Cold War-era anti-communist paranoia, and the idea that domestic civil rights activists were similar to foreign enemies, as manifested in activities such as the CIA's Operation CHAOS.[44]
Things have changed over the last 100 years and due to the rise of acts of terrorism and the easy access to high-powered weapons; special weapons and tactics teams have been implemented and are being utilized across the nation.[45] The 1960s to 1990s, encounters with the sophisticated weapons of narcotics trafficking groups such as the Medellín Cartel and street gangs such as the Gangster Disciples, with organized, left-wing protesters at such events as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the 1999 WTO Conference in Seattle,[46] with urban riots such as the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, the 1967 Detroit riot, and the 1992 Los Angeles riots led law enforcement to reconsider their standard side arms. As well, law enforcement experience with arsonists such as Earth Liberation Front (ELF),[47][48] with mass shootings and/or shootouts such as the 1984 McDonald's massacre in San Ysidro and the 1986 shootout between eight FBI agents and two serial bank robbers in Miami (in which the agents were out-gunned by the robbers) and with explosive devices used by the Weather Underground, Timothy McVeigh, and Ted Kaczynski (the "Unabomber"), highlighted the inadequacy of many law enforcement agencies' weapons and tactics.[citation needed]
Researchers David N. Falcone, Edward L. Wells, and Ralph A. Weisheit describe a historical separation of police models between small towns and larger cities, which tended to function differently with separate hierarchical systems supporting each.[49] The militarization of both rural and urban law enforcement has been attributed to the United States' involvement in wars during the 20th century, and to increasingly frequent encounters with violent protesters and criminals with automatic weapons, explosives, and body armor, although some attribute the militarization to the more recent campaigns known as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.[50][51] Historian Charles A. Beard argues that cultural change during the Great Depression encouraged the militarization of law enforcement,[52] whereas Harwood argues that the creation of SWAT teams and tactical units within law enforcement during the 1960s began such trend.
The 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act allows the U.S. military to cooperate with domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies. Operations in support of law enforcement include assistance in counter-drug operations, assistance for civil disturbances, special security operations, counter-terrorism, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), and similar activities. Constitutional and statutory restrictions and corresponding directives and regulations limit the type of support provided in this area. This allows the U.S. military to give law enforcement agencies access to its military bases and its military equipment.[53] The legislation was promoted during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan in the context of the War on drugs, and is considered a part of a general trend towards the militarization of police.[53] The Act is cited in the 1992 essay The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 as having set a precedent that the author, a United States Air Force officer, considered dangerous.
The 1997 North Hollywood shootout had a profound effect on law enforcement agencies. Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their standard issue 9×19mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. The North Hollywood bank robbers carried fully automatic AK-47-style weapons with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating vehicles and police Kevlar vests. With these weapons, two bank robbers fired approximately 1,100 rounds at officers and civilians before being killed. The robbers wore body armor which successfully protected them from bullets and shotgun pellets fired by the responding patrolmen. Police noted that the service pistols carried by the first responding officers had insufficient range and relatively poor accuracy, although a SWAT team eventually arrived with sufficient firepower.[citation needed] The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol pistols and shotguns in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States toward arming selected police officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower such as semi-automatic 5.56×45mm NATO AR-15 type rifles.[citation needed] SWAT teams, whose close quarters battle weaponry usually consisted of submachine guns that fired pistol cartridges such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, began supplementing them with AR-15 type rifles and carbines.[citation needed]
Seven months after the incident, the Department of Defense gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol sergeant;[54][55] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[56][full citation needed] As a result of this incident, the LAPD authorized its officers to carry .45 ACP caliber semiautomatic pistols as duty sidearms, specifically the Smith & Wesson Models 4506 and 4566. Prior to 1997, only LAPD SWAT officers were authorized to carry .45 ACP caliber pistols, specifically the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.[57]
The 1033 program was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 as part of the U.S. Government's Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA) to transfer excess military equipment to law enforcement agencies.[58] As of 2014, 8,000 local law enforcement agencies participate in the reutilization program that has transferred $5.1 billion in military hardware from the United States Department of Defense to local American law enforcement agencies since 1997.[citation needed] Police departments have obtained surplus aircraft, bayonets, tactical armored vehicles, weapons, including grenade launchers, and watercraft.[citation needed]
If you want we can also get to a comparison of the firepower in hands of civilians over time.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Yes, there are some hypothetical situations where we can imagine cops needing to be violent to innocent civilians in order to prevent a greater harm. But there is no evidence that any of the incredibly pervasive and horrific amount of police brutality we are seeing right now fits such a hypothetical situation.
That needs to be analyzed in a case by case basis, for sure, just as there have been incidents of unjustified use of force there have also been instances in which such force was justified to stop attacks against the cops themselves and attempts to loot (or looting itself). But if the possibility exists then the police needs to be prepared for dealing with it, both in terms of materiel and training.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:This does not seem to relate to my claim that we should defund the police. If some upper class people hypocritically argue that we should abolish police while also supporting a police presence in their neighbourhoods, that does not affect y argument.
No, it doesn't affect the truth of the claim (or in this case the lack of it) but it is important to understand where those arguments come from: People who don't need to worry too much about crime are unlikely to keep it in mind when discussing law enforcement.
As for defunding and disarming police departments: You would need to specify how far do you want to get into the defunding business and what kind of police expenses should be reduced. As for disarming the police, I'm against it due to the fact that for good or evil American civilians have access to a surprisingly large firepower by both legal and illegal means, and for what it's worth I don't think the police has sent the SWAT to deal with protests or to engage in community policing. Yet there are instances when such firepower has shown to be necessary, unfortunately.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:What law did he break?
He did not steal the merchandise, since he never left with it.
If so, why did the clerks go to the street to talk to him and why did they call 911 saying he had left without returning the cigarettes? Do you have any evidence that the caller lied?
Pants-of-Dog wrote:As for the store policy, they have changed it. So now the store will be doing what I am proposing: finding community based solutions to things like counterfeit money instead of involving police.
Yes, after some people started criticizing the owner. I actually wonder if the store got looted now that I think about it. It would make sense.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Sure.
Let us listen to what the actual communities want.
In the case of Mr. Floyd’s neighbourhood, it is reasonable to think they do not want an increased police presence. This is corroborated by the fact that the Minneapolis city council is discussing dismantling the police department.
Sure, it will be an interesting experiment to follow. One I'm skeptical about, but it's their right to attempt new things.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:I already addressed this. He did not leave with the cigarettes. He was probably high. Being high is not illegal, and it is questionable as to whether or not he broke any law by not returning the cigarettes.
Why did the store clerks go out to speak to him and why did they call 911 saying he hadn't returned the cigs? Were they lying?
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Again, none of this shows Mr. Floyd committing a crime.
I have no idea why you think I am trying to shift blame away from the murdering cop. The cop is entirely to blame, and so is the systemic racism of the justice system. The teenage clerk was, at worst, not experienced enough to understand why it is not a good idea to call the police on black people. Thankfully, the store has changed its policy and this will no longer be a problem at this store.
Then why make it an issue that they called the police? And why make it a lesson that they "shouldn't call the police on black people"? Would it be fine if they did so on Latinos, Asians or Whites?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Fact 2. White people have markedly different experiences with police under the same circumstances. Do you disagree?
A professor has said his ‘white privilege’ meant his own arrest for trying to pay with a counterfeit $20 bill is ‘a story I sometimes tell at parties’ while for black man George Floyd it was a ‘death sentence’.
Mark McCoy, a white man and an archaeologist and associate professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, was arrested in Massachusetts in 1994 for the same charge as Floyd – allegedly spending with a fake $20 bill.
McCoy, then a white 18-year-old, spent a night in jail, the charge was dropped after a six-month probationary period and he went on to be a successful university professor.
https://newscolony.com/professor-says-h ... privilege/
Thanks for posting an example of getting the cops called on you if you paid with a counterfeit bill, even if you were White.