ForumTouchy Subjects ► Police Violence and Civil Unrest in American Cities
One of my friends posted a long list of links the other day with articles about incidents followed by the article about the killer being acquitted or getting a very light sentence. It went back to Trayvon Martin in 2012 and there were literally hundreds since then. Most of them were caught on video. We've taught a generation of black kids growing up at this time that if they are killed by the police or just a white civilian, the chance of justice being done is miniscule. And we've taught a generation of police that if they kill a black person, they can more than likely get away with it. Just say "I feared for my life," and you get off! Even if they were unarmed.

So that's the real nature of the problem. The solution remains unknown, but when you think of the problem that way, it's easy to see why a lot of people are calling for complete abolishment of traditional police forces. How else can you eliminate that felling of helplessness and that sense of injustice? How else can you begin to address the trauma that these repeated events have caused?
  
Complete abolition of police would be cathartic for a lot of people. I have no reason to believe it would make people safer. Remember that Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery weren't killed by police, they were killed by white people who said they were in danger.

How are those same people going to respond when there are no cops to come arrest them, and no cops to come protect them? You think gun control is a problem now, wait until these folks think they are the only line of defense for their neighborhood.
  
Anarchists pushing to dissolve police in our capitalist, gun toting country would be a sight to see. The McDefense Force would be real.

Police need reform, stricter training and guidelines, not removal. Slight bias I suppose, but my friend is a cop, and they take a lie detector test before you get into the academy. Its basic stuff like "have you ever stole anything" etc, but I wonder if adding some questions like "are you racist" would offer some quality control.
  
Lie detector tests are bullshit1, so it's doubtful.
  
Ombra said:
"are you racist"

  • White guilt
  • I'm-not-a-racist-but people

These throw enough invalidating chaos into any useful information that can be gleaned from this question.

No one ever thinks to themselves "I am a racist".

"I'm not a racist, he just looked suspicious"
"I'm not a racist, this is just the natural order of things"
  
Man, I really want a solution but it feels like we have so many ideas thrown out but no way to know if one can or will stick. I want these ideas fleshed out and I want to see steps taken soon towards one of them.
  
I think it's a bad idea to ask applicants if they're racist. It will just get people's backs up, especially if you only do it to white applicants. It's not like anyone's going to say "Yes I am, is that a problem?".
  
It wouldn't be the first time the government required people to answer useless questions. Form I-485 includes this series of checkboxes.
  
Engage in any other unlawful activity: Yes

Please describe: Nah ah, you're gonna have to catch me.
  
I guess you could be less explicit about the wording, along the lines of "were you ever suspicious of a person because of the color of their skin" but what Blake said, most have convinced themselves otherwise.

On top of how useless polygraphs are, which I have just learned today. Fuck you Maury I trusted you.
  
US Visa applicants must answer these questions:

Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice?
Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations or any other illegal activity in the United States?
Are you a member of a terrorist organization?
Have you ever participated in genocide?
Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?
Have you ever committed torture?
Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of child soldiers?
Are you coming to the U.S. to practice polygamy?
  
I've always said that the privilege of being an American is you can keep the government out of your attempted genocides and polygamy. It's a personal issue.
  
Has anyone seen how federal police cleared out peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square? All for Trump's publicity stunt? They attacked with riot gear, and tear gas, without cause. This is a grave violation of first amendment rights. What bothers me more is how little accountability there is.

It'd be nice if people would not loot and instead attack the government. Imagine a judge sets an unlawful precedent by letting a serial murderer walk free; I would want to burn down the courthouse and hang the judge.
  
So what are the rules with regard to static protests? Is it just whoever gets there first gets the space as long as they want? I mean what if an animal rights group wanted to have an animal rights protest right now, they wouldn't get a look in, would they? I guess that's what I think about with regard to police clearing out the protestors for Trump's photo-op. It's like okay you've had your turn with the square, now Trump wants a turn.
  
First, I think it's important to set the scene if you're not familiar with Lafayette Square. Protests occur there almost 24/7 and people even camp out. Second, there was no warning given to the crowd of protestors. The government just started clearing people out of the area almost immediately. The precedent has been set that it's a place for peaceful protest and although I have no idea what the legal limit is on how long you can be there, it's unlikely that there was any violation of the law since that was never publically expressed by the responsible federal law enforcement. Historically, government sites have simply allowed protests. This video describes the situation from the perpective of a trial lawyer I usually watch for entertainment.
  
Millpond said:
So what are the rules with regard to static protests? Is it just whoever gets there first gets the space as long as they want?
Yes. Also, two groups can protest two issues at the same time, as long as they're doing so peacefully.

Millpond said:
I mean what if an animal rights group wanted to have an animal rights protest right now
They could. Nothing is stopping them (except chemical weapons and rubber bullets).

Millpond said:
guess that's what I think about with regard to police clearing out the protestors for Trump's photo-op.
But there weren't other groups trying to use that space to peacefully protest. The first part of what you've said has nothing to do with the use of chemical and projectile weapons on peaceful protesters.

Millpond said:
It's like okay you've had your turn with the square, now Trump wants a turn.
Trump isn't a civilian, he the leader of the government. He doesn't need "a turn" at using a public space to get a message out. He has all the resources he needs to communicate his message without gassing our citizens.
  
Most of us learn not to take our turn by force by midway through kindergarten. But then again, Trump is still developmentally a preschooler...
  
You think gun control is a problem now, wait until these folks think they are the only line of defense for their neighborhood.
The Zimmermans will be very surprised to find the shoe's on the other foot and will probably find every excuse to start $#!@. We're not in a good place right now to go cold turkey on policing.
  
Defund the police doesn't necessarily mean abolish the police, which in turn doesn't mean abolish the police overnight.
  
yes, got that
  
Alright, don't misrepresent it as "cold turkey" then.
  
The US police are way behind the curve when it comes to training and tactics for deescalation. They've been aggressive, intimidating and forceful in apprehending individuals which leads to a greater likelihood of resistance. In response to civil unrest the authorities' attitude is to treat the public with greater apprehension and paranoia.

We don't need to defund the police, we need to revamp the entire law enforcement system accross the board piece by piece, and by extension, the justice system's approach to dealing with police. There's too many close relationships where there should be checks and balances.
  
I'm definitely for directing some police funding into other programs, at the least. Police right now have to deal with things like mental illness, homelessness, domestic abuse, addiction, etc. that the police force isn't well-equipped to deal with. Directing money into social programs will do a lot more to reduce these things than just re-training the police we have.
I do agree that having a police force is a good idea, I just think its scope should be narrowed considerably.
  
@Fwip the post I quoted from[Edit: and was responding to] literally started with the phrase "complete abolition of the police"; what did Imisrepresent?
  
Warning; I'm gonna take this metaphor too far in this post.

Cold turkey means cessation all at once. If you stop smoking 'cold turkey,' that means starting now you're never gonna have another cigarette. Alternate ways to abolish your smoking habit include:
* gradual tapering of cigarette use
* using safer alternatives to smoking that still perform the function of supplying nicotine (patches, gums, vaping)
* using non-nicotine approaches, by avoiding your cigarette-craving triggers and replacing the cigarette habit with a less-destructive alternative

Immediate abolition of the police may induce 'withdrawal symptoms' - which for a nation with such an entrenched cop habit as ours, may be pretty dangerous. Gradually drawing down the cops to zero over time, while investing in our communities and safer alternatives to policing, is a safer route.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Police Violence and Civil Unrest in American Cities