Oh I know that. However I have just read Radley Balko’s history on the militarization of police in the usa, and felt like just calling them out for what they behave as, rather than what their language designation claims them to be.
1 Like
That is so far beyond anything I can understand. The only thing that would restore my faith in the police would have been for another cop to turn around and arrest that jackass on the spot.
5 Likes
As a generation the boomers sold out, petered out, or burned out. I’m not saying my generation wouldn’t, but the nice thing about our situation is that nobody is offering to buy us out so we’ve got the feeling that pretty soon there won’t be shit to lose.
2 Likes
That’s a little facile and casts a dichotomous light on a complex issue.
A) The system needs consistent, real accountability for the actions of individuals. The system also needs a culture transfusion. Harsh punishments tend to drive bad behavior underground and curtail reporting of unsafe conditions and practices (Aviation learned this lesson, healthcare is currently coming to terms with this). Police need a safe (Institutionally backed 100%) way to address their problems --at the system level as well as the individual.
B) Police are people. When they are frightened, they (just like the rest of us) do stupid things. Fomenting fear breeds stupid on a massive scale. We have a multitude of historical examples that demonstrate the bad outcomes that arise when things devolve into “our” fear of the “other”.
To be clear; I’m pretty down with defending oneself with deadly force when faced with a life or death situation. But you have to know that police are trained to do exactly that. There is a question of “what if this goes bad?” when duty calls. Why encourage that fear? What is the point of getting more people hurt or killed if the end game is getting less people hurt and killed? That is an option of last resort. It’s war.
I’m interested in solutions that don’t get people dead. Maybe I’m laughably naive, but I think that has to be a non-negotiable mission statement for the purposes of reform.
2 Likes
42 U.S.C. 1983, or what is commonly referred to as a “1983” claim allows people to sue the police (or other government entities) for violation of civil rights. There are a lot of flavors of this kind of claim, but one common example is where police use “excessive force”. Here are a couple of brief introductions to both of those topics.
Let me answer your question with another question: Why do dogs lick their balls?
You live in a country that glorifies violence. The belief that violence is a viable solution to most forms of conflict is commonplace in US society. The “Wild West” mindset didn’t die out with the beginning of the 20th century.
There are a lot of examples where you can see this mindset manifested. The glorification of all things military - you can see this in those typical “Thank you for your service”, “Support our troops!” and “We have the best military on the world, Fuck Yeah!” utterances quite common in the US. The militaristic “might makes right” attitude is not only present in foreign politics (there were quite enough examples of that in the last decade) but also in domestic affairs (see: War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on insert Problem here) . Then there is the US approach to gun ownership - the right to own and use a gun is seen as one of the most important rights. Most often you hear that guns are important to protect oneself against crime but we have many examples of societies functioning very peacefully without widespread gun ownership.
Do you really wonder then that your police shows a similar “Kick Ass”/“Might makes right” attitude to problem/conflict solving like the rest of the society and politics? Is the militarism of the US society one of the causes for militarization of the police forces?
5 Likes
Well, to be fair the “Wild West” itself was still going strong when Arizona became a State in 1912 (and this did happen in Tucson.) The (somewhat) famous Arizona Rangers were organized by Burt Mossman in 1901.
The problem with §1983 claims is that police officers (and other constitutional wrongdoers) are typically indemnified by their employers (i.e., the city or state). Individual police officers do not end up paying, so the risk of being liable for §1983 claims does little to shape their behaviour. This is classic moral hazard, but the alternative isn’t so pretty, either. In the absence of 1983 indemnifications—and with the possibility of direct liability—you may have over-deterrence, but more problematically the government will cease to be able to attract the most capable and competent individuals, who will probably chose to do other things where they run no risk of personal liability. So you will end up with even worse officials, and/or officials who ave so few assets they are effectively judgment-proof.
I think police brutality started about the same time as people discovered casual sex.
Samuel Gompers described the events and his experiences, “mounted police charged the crowd on Eighth Street, riding them down and attacking men, women, and children without discrimination. It was an orgy of brutality. I was caught in the crowd on the street and barely saved my head from being cracked by jumping down a cellarway.”
1874 Tompkins Square Park riot - Wikipedia
Considering how many takedown notices on original content there are nowadays, shouldn’t it be possible to verify your video as your own material? Once it’s verified, no general takedown notice can touch it; it can only be removed if there is specific and provable evidence that the verification was mistaken. Companies repeatedly using takedown notices against verified original content end up losing their rights to issue takedown notices. If takedown are handled as such a matter of course, why isn’t more energy being given to prevent their abuse?
That’s just what happens when you throw the can at him.
3 Likes
Sadly not “army-guys”. This is what American police look like these days
Oh, the brutality was always there. I’m talking about the militarization, the rise of SWAT teams, the change in training doctrine and tactics, that sort of thing.
Because he’s a dick?
So, how’s that fixing the system thing been going for you? Getting any traction?
If you want to change the system via the system you are going to need allot more money… because the people paying for laws these days are immorally rich.
I’ve seen report after report of the disciplinary action taken against police such as paid vacation, promotions, and the like. Or grand juries not bringing action against police, because you know, terrorists. I’ve seen the police sue the people they murder. It goes on and on. The only oversight for the police is the internal affairs department of… wait for it… the police department.
So far, it looks like the system isn’t fixing itself. Shocker.
1 Like
ummmm… cease? to be able? errrrr… I dunno about you, but I’ve never met a capable and competent person working in government - especially in the police department.
Because he like “likes” her but is too shy to talk to her.
3 Likes
And you wonder why the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment. Pay attention my friends, pay attention.
Being civil is one thing. That was defensible.
Emphasis mine.
The 2nd Amendment relates to “the right to bear arms”, and an act being “defensible” suggests one should respond to it with lethal force as opposed to “being civil”.
Your insinuation was crystal clear.
