African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 150 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15104768
@wat0n

When it comes to the effectiveness of body cam footage in addressing police brutality and systemic racism, please understand why I am not going to base my understanding on what you presume.

If we look at the evidence, we see that there is a reduction in use of force, but no indication of justification nor racism.

When it comes to the killing of Elijah McCain, all the evidence that you can amass is telling you these cops unjustly killed him. Are you arguing that suspected murderers should be allowed to walk free just because the DA knows them and decided not to prosecute?

Because if anyone else killed a young man walking home and the DA decided not to prosecute and had a personal relationship with the killer, this would be a big deal.

But not if the killer is wearing a police uniform. Or the four killers, or however many were involved.

Now, you have a whole laundry list of things that the DA supposedly needs to justify about Elijah McCain’s murder. Have they done any of this? Are they required to do so?

How do they justify the legality of this killing?
#15104779
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

When it comes to the effectiveness of body cam footage in addressing police brutality and systemic racism, please understand why I am not going to base my understanding on what you presume.

If we look at the evidence, we see that there is a reduction in use of force, but no indication of justification nor racism.


Please explain why would instances of justified use of force decrease while unjustified use of force remained constant. I would expect that most of the decrease was driven by a decrease in the unjustified use of force, simply because the footage would show such use of force was indeed justified.

Likewise, I would also expect decreased discriminatory treatment by individual cops, since discriminatory treatment would tend to lead to complaints and any such instances would be filmed too.

Pants-of-dog wrote:When it comes to the killing of Elijah McCain, all the evidence that you can amass is telling you these cops unjustly killed him. Are you arguing that suspected murderers should be allowed to walk free just because the DA knows them and decided not to prosecute?


How did you infer that from my post?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because if anyone else killed a young man walking home and the DA decided not to prosecute and had a personal relationship with the killer, this would be a big deal.


This would likely lead the DA to lose the reelection. Or perhaps would lead to a recall election. I doubt a DA would face prosecution for it, however, because they get a lot of leeway to decide to prosecute under the law and they are ultimately to answer voters in an election. Such system is of course bound to be flawed, but the alternatives are far from perfect and it's not clear they are any better.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But not if the killer is wearing a police uniform. Or the four killers, or however many were involved.

Now, you have a whole laundry list of things that the DA supposedly needs to justify about Elijah McCain’s murder. Have they done any of this? Are they required to do so?

How do they justify the legality of this killing?


I don't know, since you brought it up I'm asking you. What did the DA say about it? I recall that he said there was not enough evidence for indictment, without any further elaboration, which would likely be because the bodycam did not film the action (if the facts are as they were stated in the press and not because the bodycam footage "exonerated" them, after all how could it exonerate the cops if the camera was not filming anyone?). If so, the solution would be to forbid cops from intentionally refusing to film their procedures be it by turning their cams off or by pointing it elsewhere.
#15104828
skinster wrote:This is absurd, mainly because the war on drugs, like the war on terrorism, are not meant to be won, but excuses to imprison or kill poor people of colour. And wasn't it your homeboy Reagan who started the war on drugs anyway?



No they are not, I agree. They are an excuse to make money, among other things. There is no evidence that either of those specifically targetted people of "colour".. way to go and divide people based on their skin color, you are such a racist. In any case, no it was no Reagan who started the war, the war on freedom of people has been waged by women mostly... the Feminist movement first moved against alcohol, and then the mommy state they created moved on to other things. Women suffrage led directly to the issues you are talking about, among other disasters.
#15104859
@wat0n

If the reduction in force measured by body cams is all unnecessary, then the first study shows that half of all force is unnecessary. This means that the majority if cops are going around being unnecessarily violent half the time. Is that good policing? Is that reformable?

If the only recourse to stop DAs from letting cops off the hook is re-election, please show a DA losing an election because of this. However, at this point, the DA is free to let murderers walk just because (s)he knows them.

Finally, you have repeatedly brought up that the DA must have some reason, What is it?
#15104872
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

If the reduction in force measured by body cams is all unnecessary, then the first study shows that half of all force is unnecessary. This means that the majority if cops are going around being unnecessarily violent half the time. Is that good policing? Is that reformable?


It is indeed possible that half of the use of force was unnecessary, either out of a deliberate choice to use it by the cops or lacking incentives to try other alternatives. And of course it's possible to reform policing, as the experiments suggest.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If the only recourse to stop DAs from letting cops off the hook is re-election, please show a DA losing an election because of this. However, at this point, the DA is free to let murderers walk just because (s)he knows them.


Gil Garcetti won his first LA DA election in the wake of the Rodney King riots and lost his second reelection in the wake of the Rampart Scandal. The American system seems to be predicated on letting voters judge their local prosecutors.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, you have repeatedly brought up that the DA must have some reason, What is it?


The DA alleged there was a "lack of evidence" to indict. I would like the DA to elaborate further on the matter given the press reports and the cam footage, although I also think that we will know how accurate this was based on however the State prosecution ends.
#15104883
@wat0n

If half of all force that cops use is unjustified, that is a serious problem, do you agree?

And note that in all the studies, the cops were being observed at all times. Including the control group. One group had body cams and observers, one group just had observers. The group with body cams and observers were half as violent as the group with only observers.

How violent do you think the group with neither cams nor observers would be? Let us say twice as violent as the group with only observers. This would mean that 3/4 of the violence is unjustified.

Body and dash cams are not the solution because they do not address the causes of police brutality and racism. They simply act as a way of catching police when they do do these things. But if the people reviewing the footage are as complacent or violent as Elijah McCain’s killers, or the cops who stood and protected Mr. Floyd’s killer while he murdered, then it amounts to nothing.

This is corroborated by the study that points out that these benefits happen far more often when cops are forced to keep them on.

I notice that the DA you cite as having gained their job because of a previous failure to prosecute cops did not gain their job because of said failure to prosecute cops. Instead, they got their job because of the widespread protests and media attention that resulted from the failure to prosecute cops.

This means that if black people in the US want justice for these extrajudicial killings, they need to protest to the extent they are doing so now and did for Rodney King: to the point that they paralyze cities and get international media attention.

You “would like” the DA to explain. Is the DA under obligation to do so? Have they?
#15104897
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

If half of all force that cops use is unjustified, that is a serious problem, do you agree?


Of course it is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And note that in all the studies, the cops were being observed at all times. Including the control group. One group had body cams and observers, one group just had observers. The group with body cams and observers were half as violent as the group with only observers.

How violent do you think the group with neither cams nor observers would be? Let us say twice as violent as the group with only observers. This would mean that 3/4 of the violence is unjustified.

Body and dash cams are not the solution because they do not address the causes of police brutality and racism. They simply act as a way of catching police when they do do these things. But if the people reviewing the footage are as complacent or violent as Elijah McCain’s killers, or the cops who stood and protected Mr. Floyd’s killer while he murdered, then it amounts to nothing.

This is corroborated by the study that points out that these benefits happen far more often when cops are forced to keep them on.


The cops aren't going around with observers who watch their conduct. The outcomes (number of violent incidents, complaints, etc) are usually collected using the normal administrative data. When cops are using their bodycams, the bodycams are the observers - and is why I'm saying turning them off should be considered a form of obstruction of justice.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I notice that the DA you cite as having gained their job because of a previous failure to prosecute cops did not gain their job because of said failure to prosecute cops. Instead, they got their job because of the widespread protests and media attention that resulted from the failure to prosecute cops.

This means that if black people in the US want justice for these extrajudicial killings, they need to protest to the extent they are doing so now and did for Rodney King: to the point that they paralyze cities and get international media attention.


No, not necessarily either. Just see how he lost his job: There were no mass riots after the Rampart Scandal, another case of police brutality in LA.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You “would like” the DA to explain. Is the DA under obligation to do so? Have they?


I presume they are, at least if they do not want to lose the reelection.
#15104900
@wat0n

Please quote the text from the study that shows that control group were not observed. Thanks.

If you agree that half if all force is unjustified, and you have no criticism of the fact that cams do not address the causes of brutality, then you must agree that the current reforms do not address the causes of serious problems.

The fact that this guy lost his DA job after a massive police corruption scandal that had very little to do with police brutality and systemic racism does not support your argument. The DA lost their job for reasons that have nothing to do with police killing unarmed black people.

So we can see that if black people want to enjoy the egalitarian tule of law promised by liberal democracy, they must protest so much that it disrupts the economies of whole cities.

Finally, I am asking you two simple yes or no questions:

Is the DA legally obligated to provide an explanation for why they are refusing to charge the killers of Elijah McCain? Yes or no?

Has the DA done so? Yes or no?
#15104906
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Please quote the text from the study that shows that control group were not observed. Thanks.


Barak et. al. (2014) wrote:Use-of-Force

Rialto Police Department used a system called Blue Team to track ‘‘recorded’’ use-of-force
incidents. This standardized tracking system enabled us to count how many reported
incidents had occurred during the experimental period in both experimental and control
shifts, and to verify the details of the incidents, such as time, date, location, and whether
the officer or the suspect initiated the incident. Rialto Police Department records instances
of use-of-force, which encompasses physical force that is greater than basic control or
‘‘compliance holds’—including the use of (a) OC spray, (b) baton (c) Taser, (d) canine bite
or (e) firearm’’. These are the types of force responses that we considered as eligible use-of-
force incidents. We operationalized the ‘‘use-of-force’’ dependent variable as whether or
not force was used in a given shift.

We acknowledge that police software cannot ‘‘measure’’ the use-of-force, and that it is
nearly always up to the individual officer to account for those incidents where force was
used. Given the subjectivity of this variable and the measurement problems we reviewed above, we therefore relied on these official written reports, but not without hesitation.7
Specifically in our study, our dependent variable only indicates whether or not force was
used, but it does not say ‘‘how much’’ force was used. The ‘‘amount’’ of force used is also
up to the officer to write down, as he or she recollects it. For instance, if three police
officers use force on one suspect in one event, it would be registered as ‘‘one use-of-force.’’
Because the prevalence data are binary, even if there were one officer but two persons that
the one officer used force on, it would still be counted as ‘‘one use-of-force’’ incident.
Likewise, the variable does not say for how long the person was stunned with a Taser gun,
or how many shots were fired against an aggressive suspect, or how many times he or she
was beaten with a baton before lying down on the ground and being handcuffed.

Another limitation is that we did not know from the data which party instigated the use-
of-force, which seems to be an important aspect of use-of-force (Engel et al. 2000). For this
information, we relied on what the officers had written down (again, in Blue Team), but this
is not necessarily an objective measure. We were also able to capture information on this
question from the videotaped footage, but of course this only covers the experimental arm,
not the control shifts. An alternative would have been to systematically observe all police–
public encounters with research assistants (‘‘ride-a-longs’’), but this option went well
beyond our research budget.


Also, don't you think there would be a major confounder in having research assistants observing all encounters?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you agree that half if all force is unjustified, and you have no criticism of the fact that cams do not address the causes of brutality, then you must agree that the current reforms do not address the causes of serious problems.


But they do address what is probably one of the major ones: Lack of monitoring.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that this guy lost his DA job after a massive police corruption scandal that had very little to do with police brutality and systemic racism does not support your argument. The DA lost their job for reasons that have nothing to do with police killing unarmed black people.

So we can see that if black people want to enjoy the egalitarian tule of law promised by liberal democracy, they must protest so much that it disrupts the economies of whole cities.


The Rampart Scandal also included civil rights violations and indeed lead to the consent decree we talked about earlier, which did deal with racism. That is an example of a DA losing his job over these things.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, I am asking you two simple yes or no questions:

Is the DA legally obligated to provide an explanation for why they are refusing to charge the killers of Elijah McCain? Yes or no?

Has the DA done so? Yes or no?


1) I think it may depend on the jurisdiction.

2) The DA did provide a vague explanation. I ignore if the DA elaborated further on how this conclusion was reached.

Since you brought that example up, why don't you enlighten me about these two questions?
#15104914
According to that, they had no control group. They just used self assessment. Wow. That study is awful. So, yes, you are correct that they had no control group. But what they also then lack any objective measure of police brutality. So, the 50% reduction in use of force is actually saying that the body cams show half as much force as the cops will readily admit to.

The study also excludes holds like the one that killed Mr. Floyd.

As to your question about cofounders, please read the last sentence of the text you quoted.

Yes, body cams address lack of monitoring, but that only helps us understand how bad the problem is. It is not a solution. Much like Covid testing helps epidemiologists understand the spread of the virus, but it is not a cure.

Please explain exactly how racism was one of the most significant factors in the Rampart scandal.

Is the DA (in the jurisdiction where Elijah McCain was killed) legally obligated to provide an explanation for why they are refusing to charge the killers of Elijah McCain? Yes or no?

if you do not know if the DA has elaborated, why did you go on (at some length) about how they should do so, and other things they must do? What was your argument?
#15104921
Pants-of-dog wrote:According to that, they had no control group. They just used self assessment. Wow. That study is awful. So, yes, you are correct that they had no control group. But what they also then lack any objective measure of police brutality. So, the 50% reduction in use of force is actually saying that the body cams show half as much force as the cops will readily admit to.


I don't think you understand the meaning of "control group" here :|

Furthermore, it is consistent with the fact that complaints also decreased. Cops don't fill those out.

Barak et. al. (2014) wrote:Citizen Complaints

In some ways, complaints compliment data on use-of-force (Pate et al. 1993). It is common practice for virtually all police agencies to have clear guidelines for citizens to file complaints against officers, though the rates of complaints vary dramatically between different forces. Nevertheless, analysis of departmental and citizens’ complaints against police officers was shown to provide somewhat reliable estimates of use-of-force (McCluskey and Terrill 2005: 513). If this is the case, then we ought to use citizens’ complaints as a proxy for incidents of use-of-force—though they can also be used as a measure of police behavior more generally. True, citizens can be very poor judges of what constitutes ‘‘force’’ and particularly so when it comes to excessive force, but these complaints do provide a glimpse into what the public perceives as ‘‘force’’.

Rialto Police Department tracked complaints against officers with software called IAPro. Formally, the system records citizens’ complaints where the reporting party has filed a grievance for alleged misconduct or what they perceive as poor performance. We used the data captured on this system to count the number of complaints (of any kind) filed against Rialto police officers.


Pants-of-dog wrote:The study also excludes holds like the one that killed Mr. Floyd.


I ignore if the Rialto PD even allowed those when the study was carried out.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As to your question about cofounders, please read the last sentence of the text you quoted.


I did. But it doesn't really change my argument, does it?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, body cams address lack of monitoring, but that only helps us understand how bad the problem is. It is not a solution. Much like Covid testing helps epidemiologists understand the spread of the virus, but it is not a cure.


The difference, though, is that you cannot jail or fire COVID-19 for misconduct, but those things can happen to cops when they do so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please explain exactly how racism was one of the most significant factors in the Rampart scandal.


Why did the consent decree include bias if it played no role in the scandal? I thought cops were inherently racist or something like that?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is the DA (in the jurisdiction where Elijah McCain was killed) legally obligated to provide an explanation for why they are refusing to charge the killers of Elijah McCain? Yes or no?

if you do not know if the DA has elaborated, why did you go on (at some length) about how they should do so, and other things they must do? What was your argument?


Why don't you answer these questions since you brought this example up? Presumably, not justifying their actions would open them up for criticism and potentially losing a reelection. I think DAs have the right and duty to defend their decisions, particularly when facing criticism like in this case. If the DA still has not done so, even now that this work is coming under scrutiny, I guess he or she will have to face the consequences come election time.
#15104924
@wat0n

If you want to pretend I do not know what control group means, feel free.

It does not refute my criticisms, like the complete lack of objective measure of a normal amount of violence. The darkly humourous part is the assumption that cops will put unjustified violence in their reports. Lol.

“Today we killed a young man walking home from the store for no reason”.

Nor does your ignoring of facts refute the fact that holds were excluded from the study, despite the fact that we know beyond a doubt that such holds are actually a use of force that can result in death.

Yes, cops can theoretically be fired for police brutality and killing, but since they are only punished when there are widespread protests and international media attention, this is an irrelevant point. Body cams are still not a solution. They are a monitoring system. And the monitors are other cops and DAs, the same people who always let killer cops off the hook.

I see that you failed to show how racism had anything to do with the Rampart scandal. I will dismiss this argument as unsupported.
#15104927
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

If you want to pretend I do not know what control group means, feel free.

It does not refute my criticisms, like the complete lack of objective measure of a normal amount of violence. The darkly humourous part is the assumption that cops will put unjustified violence in their reports. Lol.

“Today we killed a young man walking home from the store for no reason”.


Again, on top of your ignorance that a "control group" in this context is shifts that don't have cops wearing bodycams, I also mentioned that they considered complaints (including complaints regarding use of force) as an outcome. There is literature showing they are related to actual incidents of violence.

I take your inability to consider that as an attempt to grasp at straws.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Nor does your ignoring of facts refute the fact that holds were excluded from the study, despite the fact that we know beyond a doubt that such holds are actually a use of force that can result in death.


We also know beyond a doubt that over 90% of people killed by the police were killed by the discharge of firearms, and that doesn't really address the issue of complaints.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, cops can theoretically be fired for police brutality and killing, but since they are only punished when there are widespread protests and international media attention, this is an irrelevant point. Body cams are still not a solution. They are a monitoring system. And the monitors are other cops and DAs, the same people who always let killer cops off the hook.


Yet it seems the bodycams do deter cops from all sorts of misbehavior, hence the lower number of complaints and incidents of use of force.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I see that you failed to show how racism had anything to do with the Rampart scandal. I will dismiss this argument as unsupported.


Why don't you click the link I provided and quote the very first incident (from 1997) in the timeline?
#15104936
@wat0n

Please explain exactly what your argument is concerning complaints and addressing systemic racism and police brutality.

I think the measured reduction in use of force is misleading for another reason. I think cops will act differently if they know it will only be cops and prosecutors who look at the footage. The study shows what cops wearing body cams act like when they know that outside and supposedly impartial observers will be reviewing the footage. Whether or not this reduction in violence also occurs when cops think that another cop might one day watch the footage is the more logical number we should be looking for.

Or have non-police review all footage.

If it is as easy as clicking a link and copying and pasting some text, it should be easy for you to provide the evidence you need to support your argument.
#15104941
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Please explain exactly what your argument is concerning complaints and addressing systemic racism and police brutality.

I think the measured reduction in use of force is misleading for another reason. I think cops will act differently if they know it will only be cops and prosecutors who look at the footage. The study shows what cops wearing body cams act like when they know that outside and supposedly impartial observers will be reviewing the footage. Whether or not this reduction in violence also occurs when cops think that another cop might one day watch the footage is the more logical number we should be looking for.

Or have non-police review all footage.


If this was the case, why did complaints go down? I don't think the researchers were watching the footage (it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the paper), they were simply monitoring outcomes like the reports of use of force, citizen complaints and also the number of interactions reported. Furthermore, that footage can be requested through the FOIA.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If it is as easy as clicking a link and copying and pasting some text, it should be easy for you to provide the evidence you need to support your argument.


PBS wrote:March 18, 1997 - Road Rage Shootout

Undercover L.A.P.D. officer Frank Lyga shot and killed off-duty L.A.P.D. officer Kevin Gaines in a case of apparent road rage. The shooting of a black officer -- Gaines -- by a white cop -- Lyga -- created a highly publicized police controversy. Lyga told FRONTLINE that Gaines threatened him with a gun and that he responded in self-defense, adding, "In my training experience this guy had 'I'm a gang member' written all over him." Investigators on the case discovered that Gaines had allegedly been involved in similar road rage incidents, threatening drivers and brandishing his gun. They also discovered troubling connections between Gaines and Death Row Records, a rap recording label owned by Marion "Suge" Knight that, investigators came to find, was hiring off-duty police officers as security guards.

Lyga, who had been reassigned to desk duty while the L.A.P.D. reviewed the circumstances of the shooting, including whether his actions had been racially motivated, was ultimately exonerated a year later. Three separate internal investigations determined that the shooting was "in policy."

After the shooting, the Gaines family, represented by attorney Johnnie Cochran, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles for $25 million. The city later settled the suit for $250,000.


Under your own definitions, is this a racist incident? It's the very first one of the scandal.
#15104946
@wat0n

@wat0n

Please explain exactly what your argument is concerning complaints and addressing systemic racism and police brutality.

Yes, that is the first incident in the scandal. But the scandal was not about that incident at all. That incident just led to an investigation into the dead black officer that revealed the first if a series of clues about the actual scandal.
#15104947
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

@wat0n

Please explain exactly what your argument is concerning complaints and addressing systemic racism and police brutality.


Complaints are known to be correlated with incidents of police brutality, which in your view is a form of systemic racism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that is the first incident in the scandal. But the scandal was not about that incident at all. That incident just led to an investigation into the dead black officer that revealed the first if a series of clues about the actual scandal.


Nobody said the scandal was only about that incident. But it was part of it.
#15105064
@wat0n

Provide evidence for your claim that complaints are correlated w8th police brutality and racism.

Also, it is clear that the Rampart scandal was not about racism.

Finally, how do you reconcile the apparently unjust killing of Elijah McCain with the fact that his killing was perfectly legal, according to the police who killed him?
#15105074
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Provide evidence for your claim that complaints are correlated w8th police brutality and racism.


See my source above.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, it is clear that the Rampart scandal was not about racism.


It was about many things, including racism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, how do you reconcile the apparently unjust killing of Elijah McCain with the fact that his killing was perfectly legal, according to the police who killed him?


The bolded part is the key part, isn't it?
  • 1
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 182
First Nations Brilliance

The prophetic words of the Great Chief Seattle of[…]

The Two Forms of Socialism

Not at all, it can be created (socialism)by demo[…]

Thank Goodness for Sane People

What do you do when your psychological warfare doe[…]

Election 2020

You are clearly not a conservative. Conservative[…]