That’s interesting.
I feel that since police officers are public servants, they should be accountable for whatever happens in the course of their duties.
We seem to have a problem with accountability in the States these days, and lots of people are angry about that.
I ('d like to) totally understand if your law enforcement system isn’t fucked up, but this is a broken thing we have. Body cameras are a blunt tool, but they seem better than just dash cams.
I didn’t say it the first time, but I’m with you here. I make it a point to observe the cameras around me in public spaces and wave to them.
I used to be one of the people monitoring those cameras, and, I can tell you, what they see does not justify their salaries.
Yep, and if you asked me the same question on a different day I could easily answer the other way (i.e., they should wear them here). Our police do some spectacularly stupid things from time to time, but generally they’re on the level and do a good job.
That’s kind of the problem.
Most of our cops are good guys doing a good job, but with roughly 71 times the population of NZ, adjusted for populational inflation, a few bad cops here is a lot of them. Roughly 71 times as many, if we use pretend simple numbers.
I know this can’t happen because of States’ rights and whatnot, but I’d like to see the American system go the way of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They’re 95% of the cops in Canada, and they all get (roughly) the same training, the same rules, the same standards.
To put it another way, you never hear of Mounties shooting and killing a fleeing unarmed black guy.
This is our problem, but we’re so hung up on doing things our way that we can’t change productively.
Yeah, there’s those structural differences which work in our favour, and there’s also the not-so-small point that very few of them walk around carrying a weapon. They all (almost all?) have ready access to weapons in a locked trunk on the patrol car, but that physical separation and barrier means that firearms aren’t their go-to tool of choice in any and every encounter with the public. I wish they’d go easy on the mace and tasers though - those they do carry around, and are starting to show a marked predilection for.
The moran in charge of the Police Association (basically their union) is - I think - doing his members a grave disservice by constantly pushing the line that his members need to be carrying at all times. He’s ignoring the evidence, he belittles the work of his members who do just fine without weapons, and he seems unfamiliar with the concept of an arms race.
I didn’t know about this, but wow (snip):
About 300 police, including members of the Armed Offenders Squad and Special Tactics Group, were involved in the arrests[2] in which four guns and 230 rounds of ammunition were seized and 17 people arrested, all but one of them charged with firearms offences.
16 charges for four guns?! And a scant 230 rounds of ammo? That’s not even a light day at the range around here! Honestly, it’s usually more like 1k rounds per range visit, and 1-6 guns. {ETA: Sometimes they’re fully automatic!} (Shit, maybe I’m part of the problem? Don’t say anything!)
Even in Canada only some aboriginal people are first nations.
Indigenous - Internationally accepted term
Aboriginal - Canadian Indigenous people
Native American - American Indigenous people
Indian - Holy crap this is still the legal term that designates the status of certain Aboriginal people, what century is Canada living in?
When people make a mistake that causes the death of another person, they are often held accountable for that mistake with a variety of charges - manslaughter, negligence. When police shoot unarmed people on video without doing anything to assess the threat they are rarely held accountable for making a mess on a floor. At least part of the solution is to hold people accountable for the mistakes they make in proportion to the severity of the mistake they make. That is what communicates that those mistakes are unacceptable. Part of that training ought to be, “If you shoot someone for no reason you are going to end up in prison - just like anyone else would - so think before you shoot someone.” (Note: I may be taking this comment out of context, if so, my comment applies to the idea that police departments need to be improved rather than punished - they need both)
It is archaic, but it is still used in America by some Native Americans and several government entities. Examples being National Indian Gaming Convention and US Dept. of Interior - Indian Affairs (sounds scandalous).
As well as National Congress of American Indians and the tribe I belong to has and Indian Child Welfare program and their Health services program is for " Citizen Potawatomi Nation and members of other federally-recognized American Indian tribes and nations and Alaskan Natives."
I am sure some people take some offense to it, but obviously some tribes find it acceptable.
Obviously it is a historical term that some people use to describe themselves and that’s fine. On the other hand, I find the fact that the central piece of legislation setting out the relationship between my government and aboriginals is the Indian Act to be pretty embarrassing.
If the UK had an act relating to the relationship between the overall UK government and Scotland called the “Guatemalan Act” then you might hear some Scots occasionally, in specific legal circumstances, calling themselves Guatemalans, but that wouldn’t keep the entire thing from reeking with stupidity.
In the US we still have the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which, speaking of which century we’re in, should probably just be abolished already.
We were just at the beautiful Pequod museum and it was just stomach turning to learn about the near total destruction of this one group. It is horrendous what we did and what we all lost in knowledge and community. It shook me up. We want to go up for the big dancing festival next year if we can.
My understanding is that historically there wasn’t a catchall term for Native Americans; that they never considered themselves to be one group but instead each tribe prefers to be called by their tribal name. When my brother was out West he was told by several people that “Indian” was as good as anything else but they would rather be referred to as “Cherokee,” “Cree,” etc.
I have a Native friend. I forget his tribe, but he calls himself “Indian”, so I guess it’s ok here. Sort of.
Is that like using Eskimo instead of Inuit, because Inuit is a specific people?
Would it be worse to use ‘Indian’ than the wrong tribe?
(I imagine the right answer is just to ask, anyway, if you really need to use any term)
Just because one group has it worse and we never really noticed does not obliviate the problems of everyone else.
I’d get popcorn to see the reactions but I’m all out after everything else that’s gone on.
I thought I’d look at something more official to see what language they use.
The BIA uses “Native American” and “American Indian” and “Alaskan Native”.
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
I also hit the Pequod museum because they did such a nice job and their exhibits were not just limited to their own tribe’s artifacts. They seem to use “Tribal” “Native American” “Native Tribes” and “Native People.”
The overall fact that native americans are more likely to be shot by police than black americans is hardly surprising to me. Mostly people forget that indigenous people even exist when they discuss crime stats.
But wow those stats are pretty brutal for black americans. Look at that top line of the data. Now multiply that by probably close to two to get the results for males only. Divide by ten to get rate per 100,000 instead of per million since that’s what murder rates are measured in. That puts the risk of being killed by police as a young black man in America higher than the risk of being killed by any person as a person in 45 countries according to wikipedia’s infallible stats.
Indian is often not cool with individuals, but it isn’t going anywhere because it is often a legal designation. In Canada, Indian is only polite if you know the person well enough to know it won’t offend, and it is also used (and capitalized) in reference to legal status.
I presume given the BIA’s name that it remains a legal designation down there too.
Good point.
I guarantee you it will play out BOTH those ways. Also, two more ways:
the report comes via Al-Jazeera, therefore it is not true, because 9/11.
white privilege. It’s always about whitey, no need to look (or think) any further.
Your #1 will receive the least love, because it’s the only thing that would require physical action beyond typing angry letters.
