patrick.net

4. Technology to easier catch criminals with.

WookieMan says

Because if they're all reduced, the police brutality issue would also be reduced because police departments can scrutinize recruits much more and only hire the best.

Your statement is empirically false. Police brutality has increased as crime has decreased. Police brutality is largely a function of militarization of police forces. A police force trained to act like an army does act like an army. And armies exist solely to kill. That's what armies do. That's all armies do.

WookieMan says

Mind you there will still be some bad ones. Impossible to make it completely go away.

Again, I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. Police all over western Europe are civilize and do not unnecessarily kill people. They do not commit assault. They do not rape. They do not break the law. Europe has proved beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that is is possible to have police forces that are not corrupt, not criminal, and not violent. The problem America is facing has already been solved in Europe. What you think is impossible has already been done in many nations.

It largely comes down to
- Accountability
- Not militarizing the police
- Community policing
- Focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment and suffering
- Adopting the attitude that someone who commits a crime is still a member of the society and will be released, so it's best to treat that person like a human being instead of turning him into a monster. You don't want monsters on the street.

WookieMan says

Stop robbing the liquor store. Hey blacks, stop shooting each other. Stop doing that shit and we need way fewer cops. We know the cause of ALL of this. Yet we blame the wrong things most of the time. How about fixing the cause of needing the cops in the first place? Nah, it's just the cops, the government,

This is a straw man argument. The take a knee movement is about all the innocent and nonthreatening blacks who have been slaughtered by criminal police who never had to answer for their crimes. It's not about cops shooting people who are actually being a threat to someone. Occasionally someone who is a threat will be mistaken as not having been a threat, but that's because in the vast majority of the time the police do shoot people who are absolutely no threat. Case in point, Charles Kinsey.

Charles Kinsey is a law-abiding citizen who never committed a crime in his life. He was not the suspect in any crime. He is an educated professional behavior therapist who was trying to get an autistic man to cooperate with the police. When the police became aggressive, he lied down with his hands very visibly raised showing that he posed absolutely no threat. Yet he was shot by the police who then tried to cover it up as an accident. Luckily, the evidence and public outcry was enough to convince the courts to prosecute.

Now if being unarmed, law abiding, lying down with your hands up, complying with every order of the cops, and being completely cooperative isn't enough to keep a black man form being shot, what the hell is enough? Do they have to dye their skin white? What the fuck would you have done differently in that situation to keep form being shot? I'm willing to bet neither you nor anyone else has an answer to that question.

Strategist says

I agree with #3. The rest is just nonsense.

Then prove that it is nonsense. I've shown plenty of evidence to support all these points.

Strategist says

You expect the taxpayer to pay $10 million like OJ did, just to get away with murder. Ain't gonna happen. Just because they are poor does not make them innocent.

These are bullshit straw man arguments. OJ got away with murder because he was a celebrity. It has nothing to do with criminal cops committing murder and not being prosecuted.

Nor did I say anything remotely like all poor people are innocent. However, I have given plenty of examples of innocent men who were shot and who were killed by the police.

What crime did that 9-year-old girl shot by the cop who framed the grandmother commit? What was her crime, Strategist? And what crime did Charles Kinsey commit? Maybe you should follow your own advice and not consider every black person guilty regardless of reality or evidence.

The fact is that you, Strategist, don't give a shit if innocent people are killed in your vindictive bloodlust to kill or punish criminal, and that makes you blind to the most dangerous criminals, the ones with the power of the state behind them.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I agree with #3. The rest is just nonsense.

Then prove that it is nonsense. I've shown plenty of evidence to support all these points.

You have proved nada. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

Dan8267 says

What crime did that 9-year-old girl shot by the cop who framed the grandmother commit? What was her crime, Strategist? And what crime did Charles Kinsey commit? Maybe you should follow your own advice and not consider every black person guilty regardless of reality or evidence.

I'm all for bad cops being severely punished. Bad cops are even more dangerous than criminals. I think they should receive double the punishment an average citizen would receive for similar crimes.
And I don't consider every Black person guilty. That is a silly accusation.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that you, Strategist, don't give a shit if innocent people are killed in your vindictive bloodlust to kill or punish criminal, and that makes you blind to the most dangerous criminals, the ones with the power of the state behind them.

Actually, I don't care for criminals being killed, regardless of race, religion, gender, occupation etc. I want them all dead. If we had no criminals, we would have no innocent deaths.

Strategist says

You have proved nada. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

Neither statistics nor case examples are anecdotal.

Strategist says

And I don't consider every Black person guilty. That is a silly accusation.

Far less silly than your accusation of me.

Dan8267 says

We are rapidly approaching a crime-free society. If it doesn't feel that way to you, it's because news outlets use scare tactics to drive up ratings.

The reality is that you live in the safest time in all of human history.

I'm fully aware of this. Outside of me being on a two week vacation and someone noticing a pattern of us not being home and robbing my house (not me personally), I have no concern. I'm genuinely not concerned about myself when it comes to crime.

In one year though, crime (murders) in Chicago jumped back up to damn near record levels (2016). 2017 should just be short of last year, but who knows where it will end up. Why is this? I agree we're becoming a more crime free society as a whole. Not every part of our society is though. And I don't think cops can be blamed for that (not saying that's what you're implying). I just sometimes think the status quo is just fine for the most part. Trying to dramatically tweak something, because of a few bad and highly publicized instances, is not good policy or protestation. Police were very likely part of the major reduction of crime over the last two decades. The rate of illicit behavior by police has also probably been reduced along with the reduction in crime. Ultimately what I'm getting at is that government and society as a whole could seemingly give a flying fuck about blacks. And they seemingly don't care for themselves.

So what's the solution? I don't want to hear about cops, money, jobs or government. Those things haven't worked. Integrating blacks into American society as a whole has been a decades long issue, maybe generations. Mexicans don't seemingly have much of a problem. Asians aren't really "native" here if that makes sense and is okay to say, but 9 out of 10 times they completely integrate. Indians (India). And the list goes on. I know all these groups aren't races, but they all probably have one thing in common, they were treated like shit by a cop at one time or another. Somehow that didn't stop them from moving on and doing the best they can. And I'm sure these other groups were treated just peachy by the typical white American (wetback, chink and so on). I just don't get all this, but I suppose I'm privileged.

And I'll be honest, feel free to paint me as a racist. That's what I feel like is coming. Hard questions and statements need to be made for a portion of society that seemingly could give two fucks about integrating. If we're truly a global economy and world, why is it that black areas, countries and entire continents are mostly incompetent? And if it makes any sense, I really do say that with a sense of compassion.

Bring the heat. Change my perception. I'm all ears.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

And I don't consider every Black person guilty. That is a silly accusation.

Far less silly than your accusation of me.

ha ha ha ha. Dan, you are so funny. I have rightfully accused you of so many things. So which one are you referring to?

Dan8267 says

Now if being unarmed, law abiding, lying down with your hands up, complying with every order of the cops, and being completely cooperative isn't enough to keep a black man form being shot, what the hell is enough? Do they have to dye their skin white? What the fuck would you have done differently in that situation to keep form being shot? I'm willing to bet neither you nor anyone else has an answer to that question.

Nothing would have changed that situation. It was either a racist cop or a cop that couldn't handle the nerves of the job and "thought" he was in danger.

Again, that one situation can't be applied to entire police forces. This type of stuff also can't be applied to European nations. 2nd amendment and all. So you really can't compare our police forces to theirs. The reality is, guns aren't going anywhere in America (I don't own). So police here unfortunately have to be aware of the dangers. Some of them can't handle it. Some of them look for it. And some of them are just straight up ass holes. But if you don't think cops in EU countries aren't doing illegal activities on the job then you're a little naive about human nature.

WookieMan says

So what's the solution?

There is no single magic bullet. There are a number of reforms that I propose.

1. Cease all use of military equipment by the police.
2. End the war on drugs. Decriminalize drugs and treat addiction as a medical problem. This works in every country it has been tried in.
3. End all prohibitions on U.S. citizens over 18 from voting. This includes denying the freedom to vote to felons. A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. Voting should be a right, not a privilege, and making it a privilege gives the state a perverse incentive to criminalize people and creates corruption.
4. All cops should be monitored with body cameras. The same goes for every state-issued gun.
5. The video feed should be stored and accessible to the public.
6. Prisoners should have access to review the video and flag crimes. Who's better to police the police than prisoners? They have the time and motivation.
7. Cops should be tried in a separate court system ran by judges and prosecutors who do not work with cops in trying civilians. This avoids the conflict of interest in our current court system.
8. When a cop is found guilty of a crime, that cop's entire department pays a large civil penalty that is taken from their paychecks and retirement accounts unless that department arrested the cop guilty of the crime. This gives motivation for cops to not tolerate criminal behavior from fellow cops.
9. Don't use prisons as mental illness institutions. Instead use real mental illness institutions to treat the mentally ill.
10. Repeal all victimless crime laws.
11. Use the European prison model. I've posted videos of it on other threads. It works. It's proven.
12. Ban plea bargains. 90% of cases never go to trial because the accused simply cannot risk getting a much longer sentence by exercising his right to trial.

Those twelve reforms are a damn good place to start.

Strategist says

I have rightfully accused you of so many things

Only in your delusional mind.

Strategist says

So which one are you referring to?

The false accusation that I think all poor people are innocent of all crimes. I gave multiple examples of people who were innocent and the cops did plant evidence, shoot, and/or murder the innocent person.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

So which one are you referring to?

The false accusation that I think all poor people are innocent of all crimes. I gave multiple examples of people who were innocent and the cops did plant evidence, shoot, and/or murder the innocent person.

So you gave more anecdotal evidence. When are you gonna realize anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Dan8267 says

There is no single magic bullet. There are a number of reforms that I propose.

Agreed. No magic bullet otherwise it would have been done already.
Dan8267 says

1. Cease all use of military equipment by the police.

I generally agree. I still think it's more a training/personality issue with each individual that causes more harm then the equipment they're given. We've seen plenty of scenarios where a taser was appropriate and someone ended up shot. That's not some armored vehicle running over a gang banger with a 9mm. But yes, 98% of police departments don't need military grade equipment.
Dan8267 says

2. End the war on drugs. Decriminalize drugs and treat addiction as a medical problem. This works in every country it has been tried in.

Agreed. Zero argument from me on this. Only thing is I want less government where appropriate, but feel free to tax drugs just enough to keep the black market impossible to keep afloat. Reduces crime and should easily bring in more than enough revenue to deal with what invariably is already happening with opioids and other heavy drugs. Weed not being legal is an absolute failure of our society. Anyone who wants it can get it. Always been that way.
Dan8267 says

3. End all prohibitions on U.S. citizens over 18 from voting. This includes denying the freedom to vote to felons. A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. Voting should be a right, not a privilege, and making it a privilege gives the state a perverse incentive to criminalize people and creates corruption.

Don't agree too much on this one. Just don't commit a felony. It's really an easy thing to do. Reality is anyone that is a felon is probably very unlikely to vote anyway, so that's I guess why I don't get this one. The whole being able to do X at X age is completely asinine though. Never understood why there's some magical distinction between 18 and 21.
Dan8267 says

4. All cops should be monitored with body cameras. The same goes for every state-issued gun.

No problem here. Body cameras are being implemented on a rather large and quick scale across many departments. Especially the large ones. It does take time though. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with the state-issued gun. Are you saying a camera should be installed on the weapon?
Dan8267 says

5. The video feed should be stored and accessible to the public.

What video? What about detectives within a police department? Are they required to wear the body cams and then is that video then publicly accessible? Is it possible to do what you're saying? Sure. Is it realistic and best use of tax payer money? No. How long is it stored for? You could be talking 1,000 cops daily in larger departments, multiple shifts per day and hour and hours of video. I'm not seeing this point being a reality for a while, if ever. I live in a tiny town and this would add substantial dollars to the annual budget.
Dan8267 says

6. Prisoners should have access to review the video and flag crimes. Who's better to police the police than prisoners? They have the time and motivation.

I don't get this one at all. A biased, convicted prisoners should have zero influence on anything. This is a bad idea.
Dan8267 says

7. Cops should be tried in a separate court system ran by judges and prosecutors who do not work with cops in trying civilians. This avoids the conflict of interest in our current court system.

Not a bad idea, but financially impossible in most areas. In most cases it would have to be run at the state level. You're going to need two full time dedicated judges and 2-3 full time prosecutors at a minimum and that's in a very small county. That staffing, salaries and benefits alone is $500k in most counties at a bare minimum. I just don't see where the will and money would come from without the state running it. And still, money. At least here in IL.
Dan8267 says

8. When a cop is found guilty of a crime, that cop's entire department pays a large civil penalty that is taken from their paychecks and retirement accounts unless that department

I get where you going, but this is a lunatics idea. While the stakes aren't the same, throw this same concept at any other field/profession. It wouldn't be allowed. It's DOA and always will be. You can't control other humans. And even when you see something wrong (whether you like it or not) it sometimes is not in your best interest to report it. This will ALWAYS exist.
Dan8267 says

9. Don't use prisons as mental illness institutions. Instead use real mental illness institutions to treat the mentally ill.

This one is tricky. Again I get what you're saying. But to some ANY criminal activity is a mental illness. Or put more simply, criminals are mentally ill. Either way I generally agree that more mental rehabilitation (if that makes sense) needs to be done with criminal prisoners. If they're deemed legit mentally ill, then they need to be treated that way regardless of the crime.
Dan8267 says

10. Repeal all victimless crime laws.

Agree on this for the most part. There are other examples but one area I would have issue with is a degenerate gamblers (there are other areas as well). Chicago doesn't have a casino. They want one. Let's say they get one. Next thing you know there's a 8% uptick in bankruptcies within 12 months of a casino opening in Chicago. If Chicago's revenue issues caused them to open a casino and therefore there's a large uptick in people going broke, that's a problem. While victimless, there was potentially a cause because a city can't raise revenue through other means.
Dan8267 says

11. Use the European prison model. I've posted videos of it on other threads. It works. It's proven.

Haven't looked this up. Outside of length of time being in prison (aging out of your criminal years), the US really doesn't do much to help prisoners. Not saying that's the job. But not sure what the expected result is locking someone up for 2 years and then expect them to be model citizens. Again, didn't look up the European model you speak of.
Dan8267 says

12. Ban plea bargains. 90% of cases never go to trial because the accused simply cannot risk getting a much longer sentence by exercising his right to trial.

I don't know the intricacies with this one. I actually don't think the criminals would agree with you on this one. But I suppose it's not their choice. This one is whatever for me.

I'm getting tired and don't want to come up with new ideas. I'll try to think of some, because many of these don't address the underlying societal problems with a specific and important sector of our society.

Strategist says

So you gave more anecdotal evidence. When are you gonna realize anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Court cases are not anecdotal evidence. Neither are the plethora of statistics on race issues. Just because you call something anecdotal doesn't make it so. Anecdotal means based on personal experience. Nothing I have submitted here is based on my personal experience.

WookieMan says

Agreed. No magic bullet otherwise it would have been done already.

Not necessarily true. Most of the problems in our society are due to lack of political will rather than technical difficulties. It just happens that this particular problem has many causes, so no single solution will fix all of them. The same is not true for problems in general. Sometimes a single cause is responsible for a plethora of symptoms.

WookieMan says

Don't agree too much on this one. Just don't commit a felony. It's really an easy thing to do. Reality is anyone that is a felon is probably very unlikely to vote anyway, so that's I guess why I don't get this one

There is absolutely no reasonable justification for denying the vote to felons. There are plenty of reasons for not doing so including

1. Felons pay taxes. This country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation.
2. People who have to obey laws should have a say into what those laws are.
3. There is no reason or evidence to believe that someone who commits a felon would cast "worse" votes than someone who does not.
4. Depriving people of the right to vote, even if they choose not to exercise that right, alienates people and contributes to antisocial behavior, resentment, and disloyalty.
5. Denying anyone the right to vote is immoral and undermines the honor of the country and makes the idea of the American flag being a symbol of freedom utterly laughable.
6. The less investment people have in society, the more likely they are to commit crimes or simply not be helpful or friendly to their fellow countrymen.
7. Resentment is based down from generation to generation. Do you think the children of people denied the right to vote are going to have a good opinion of the country or loyalty to their countrymen?
8. Making voting a privilege that the government can revoke only serves to create the very perverse incentives that created the war on drugs and countless political prisoners in the U.S.
9. Denying people the right to vote causes inferior government in both democracies and republics like the U.S. because the government only has to listen to a smaller segment of the population.
10. Denying people the right to vote undermines the moral high ground the U.S. seeks when opposing Russia, China, North Korea, or any other non-democratic state.
11. It is a national embarrassment that voting has never been a right and still is not a right to this day.
12. The fewer voters there are, the less politicians are held accountable.
13. Many felonies should not even be crimes. For example, in many states having oral sex with your spouse is a felony under anti-sodomy laws. Even though it's not usually enforced, it can be at any time and arbitrarily so.
14. Overcriminalization and selective enforcement of laws is ripe for corruption and abuse. Allowing the state to take away votes only aggravates this problem.
15. Letting the government decide which adult citizens can and cannot vote is the very definition of big government.
16. In practicality, it's often racist.
17. Even if it's not racist, it appears racist making America look worse and furthering divisions and racial tensions.

WookieMan says

Are you saying a camera should be installed on the weapon?

Yes, as well as a microphone and a chip for recording all shots. Call it a smart gun. We have smart everything else. It's about time to put smarts in guns. It's cheaper than all the domestic spying our government does.

WookieMan says

Is it possible to do what you're saying?

All active or armed police should be wearing body cameras at all time. It protects honest cops from false allegations and the public from criminal cops. It also makes a cop far less likely to commit a crime just like the camera does with everyone else.

WookieMan says

Is it realistic and best use of tax payer money? No.

You do realize that the government literally stores every fucking packet that crosses any major router in the tier one and tier two ISPs, right? And they have been doing so for over a decade. The government has absolutely no problems with storage. Storage is damn cheap. The government easily spends a hundred times as much on domestic spying then the costs of storing all the body cam videos for at least 20 years, more than enough time to find any crimes committed.

Salaries for cops are far more costly than storing such video. If you fire one crooked cop, you've saved the tax payers money.

WookieMan says

I'm not seeing this point being a reality for a while, if ever. I live in a tiny town and this would add substantial dollars to the annual budget.

You don't seem to realize how cheap video and bandwidth is. Every phone today has multiple high resolution cameras and the ability to broadcast high def video to the entire world, and technology is only becoming better and cheaper. The 1990s called and they want your objections back.

WookieMan says

Dan8267 says

6. Prisoners should have access to review the video and flag crimes. Who's better to police the police than prisoners? They have the time and motivation.

I don't get this one at all. A biased, convicted prisoners should have zero influence on anything. This is a bad idea.

This is another thing you don't understand about technology. Crowdsourcing works regardless of the intent of the users. It's a proven strategy. All the system has to do is record flags of videos by the user flagging them. Automatic data mining makes it utterly fucking trivial to determine which users are reliable, which are essentially random, and which are contrary indicators. There is absolutely no down side to this kind of crowdsourcing. The system figures out which videos are most likely to contain evidence of crimes based on the aggregation of user flags coupled with the history of the user's reliability. Highly likely videos are reviewed by prosecutes. Such a system makes finding the videos with evidence of a crime practically costless. You underestimate the power of technology.

WookieMan says

That staffing, salaries and benefits alone is $500k in most counties at a bare minimum.

Keeping people in prison is by far the most costly part of law enforcement. If you prevent dirty cops from planting evidence and sending innocent people to prison then you save the taxpayers money.

Furthermore, with the shitload we spend on the military, this is like pissing in the ocean, and it has a far greater effect on the safety of the American public. Divert spending from the military.

WookieMan says

I get where you going, but this is a lunatics idea. While the stakes aren't the same, throw this same concept at any other field/profession. It wouldn't be allowed. It's DOA and always will be. You can't control other humans. And even when you see something wrong (whether you like it or not) it sometimes is not in your best interest to report it. This will ALWAYS exist.

The primary reason for criminal cops is protection of such criminals by other cops. This is the right and rational thing to do, and it will solve the problem. As I've said, political will is always the problem. It was the reason slavery and segregation went on for so long. It is the reason that climate change is not being addressed. It is the reason the middle class is deteriorating. I can give you the solution to problems, but it's up to you to have the political will to implement them.

WookieMan says

This one is tricky. Again I get what you're saying. But to some ANY criminal activity is a mental illness.

When a prisoner is mentally ill that he literally has retard voice, then your court system is locking up people who should be in a mental health institution. There are plenty of people in prison who are so obviously mentally ill and you can tell from their voices.

WookieMan says

Dan8267 says

12. Ban plea bargains. 90% of cases never go to trial because the accused simply cannot risk getting a much longer sentence by exercising his right to trial.

I don't know the intricacies with this one. I actually don't think the criminals would agree with you on this one. But I suppose it's not their choice.

It's a manifestation of the tragedy of the commons, which has no place in a legal system or any other system.

Dan8267 says

The take a knee movement is about all the innocent and nonthreatening blacks who have been slaughtered by criminal police who never had to answer for their crimes.

Reference, please.

Now this idiot should be in jail:

Tulsa officer acquitted in shooting is resigning from police force
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/us/tulsa-shooting-officer-betty-shelby-resigning/index.html

Dan8267 says

There is absolutely no reasonable justification for denying the vote to felons. There are plenty of reasons for not doing so including

Criminals don't deserve rights. Victims deserve rights.
1. Criminals will vote for those who are soft on crime, which we don't want.
2. There are more important things to worry about than the welfare of criminals.
3. I don't like criminals. Fuck them. If I saw a criminal dying on the street, I would not call 911. I would tell him to have a nice day.

Blurtman says

Reference, please.

The data doesn't support BLM's or Dan's claims.

"In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The Post categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest. Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer. Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population."

https://www.city-journal.org/html/hard-data-hollow-protests-15458.html

Dan8267 says

Not even I am that pessimistic about the future. With the exception of financial crime and crimes committed by cops and other government agents, all crime has been plummeting. There is every reason to believe this trend will continue.

Violent crime has INCREASED over the last 2 years.



https://apnews.com/21504dae6b83458b976caea4f65ce140/Violence-in-US-rises-for-second-straight-year

Blurtman says

Reference, please.

Learn to use Google. It's not that hard.

Taking a knee: Why are NFL players protesting and when did they start kneeling?

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people, and people of color," Kaepernick said in a press conference after first sitting out during the anthem. "To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street, and people getting paid leave, and getting away with murder."

Police brutality has become an incredibly polarising and contentious issue in American life. This has come as a result of repeated videos showing police shooting and killing unarmed black men, which have been posted online and gone viral — illustrating the brutality that black people in America must contend with when dealing with some police officers, who often do not serve any prison time for pulling the trigger.

Furthermore,

There’s a pretty rich history of American sports stars wading into the political sphere.

For instance, John Carlos and Tommie Smith made headlines across the world when they raised the black power salute on the podium after winning in the 1968 Olympics. That protest brought them death threats, and they were expelled from the games.

Muhammad Ali is perhaps one of the best known American athletes to take a major political stand. While not a direct stand against racism, Ali refused to be drafted into the Vietnam War — a refusal that involved jail time. He did so on the basis of his faith, he said, but did note the cruel irony of asking black men to fight in Vietnam for a country that has treated them as subhuman.

More recently, NBA players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and others, helped the Black Lives Matter movement pick up steam by wearing supportive shirts following the death of Eric Garner, who was choked to death in New York.

Only psychopaths have zero sympathy for this cause.

Strategist says

Criminals don't deserve rights.

That's the most Unamerican thing ever said. A right isn't earned, by definition. Only privileges are earned.

Furthermore, the founding fathers were all criminals. They were all felons committing high treason, the most severe crime. The American Revolution wasn't legal. Did the founding fathers deserve no rights?

Harriet Tubman was a criminal, a felon. She ran the underground railroad, a highly illegal enterprise. Did she deserve no rights? Was she a scumbag?

The French resistance in WWII were criminals. They violated the laws of occupied France. Were they scumbags deserving no rights?

Your statement is utterly despicable in any nation where there are unjust laws including the United States. The anti-pot laws are unjust. Smoking weed does not make a person despicable. Denying someone the right to vote for smoking weed most certainly does make a person despicable.

Furthermore, you are a complete fool. Almost every person who goes to prison for a crime is released back into society. Your bloodlust only serves to increase violent crime by making it impossible for someone who has committed a crime and paid the price to become a law-abiding citizen and productive member of society. You'd rather see a person who has committed a single crime be forced into a lifetime of crime instead of being rehabilitated even at the cost of countless other victims. I reject your virtue signalling. There is nothing virtuous about your position. You are creating more victims of violent crime.

Strategist says

1. Criminals will vote for those who are soft on crime, which we don't want.

Evidence? Most people who commit a crime don't want crimes to be committed against them. Most people in prison committed victimless drug use crimes, which should not be crimes in the first place. The vast majority of prisoners in the United States are political prisoners on non-violent drug charges.

Furthermore, every shred of evidence has shown that
1. Severe sentencing does NOTHING to deter crime. Criminals calculate the likelihood of being caught, not the severity of sentences. Light sentences with better law enforcement deter far better.
2. Rehabilitation centers are far better and preventing crime than American prisoners. This is a cold hard fact. The only thing that matters is which is more important to you: revenge or ending violent crime and protecting the public.

Strategist says

2. There are more important things to worry about than the welfare of criminals.

There are more important things than preventing terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean we should not prevent terrorist attacks. The world isn't single-threaded. The government does tens of thousands of things simultaneously. Any government that didn't would immediately collapse. Solving one problem does not hinder solving another. More often, solving one problem aids in solving others. This is so in the case of crime and punishment. The more rehabilitation, the less crime, and the less resources needed to be spent on crime prevention, investigation, arrests, trials, and imprisonment. Once more, you are being foolish because you petty vigilantism is getting in the way of reason.

Furthermore, the founding fathers completely disagreed with you. Six of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights deal precisely with the welfare of criminals. Our entire country was founded on preventing the state from acting like you wish.

Strategist says

3. I don't like criminals. Fuck them. If I saw a criminal dying on the street, I would not call 911. I would tell him to have a nice day.

And this is why you are far worse than all but a damn few criminals.

Furthermore, this would make you a criminal in some places, those that have Good Samaritan laws.

Also, you are certainly a criminal. It is virtually impossible for any American not to inadvertently commit many crimes every single year of his or her life because of the extreme overcriminalization and complicated and contradicting laws on the books. Criminal intent means nothing to our courts today. Only technicalities matter. There is a damn near zero percent chance that you have not violate some local, state, or federal law this year alone.

Finally, protecting the rights of criminals is the only way to protect the rights of the innocent. Allowing cops to rape criminals while searching for drugs allows cops to rape law-abiding citizens while searching for drugs that aren't there. It also corrupts cops into planting evidence, something they do damn frequently, to protect their asses from lawsuits because juries are far more likely to not indict cops who find a trivial amount of weed on a person.

socal2 says

Violent crime has INCREASED over the last 2 years.

And if you think that a slight two-year increase in a 25-year trend of dramatic drops is significant, then you just suck at math.

No graph showing long-term drops in any statistics has zero incidences of minor increases. Get real, man. Sixth graders are expected to understand this shit.

You are clearly trying to cherry pick the fuck out of the data, and that's evidence of a weak position.

Dan8267 says

Yes, as well as a microphone and a chip for recording all shots. Call it a smart gun. We have smart everything else. It's about time to put smarts in guns. It's cheaper than all the domestic spying our government does.

Fine. I have no problem with this in theory.
Dan8267 says

All active or armed police should be wearing body cameras at all time. It protects honest cops from false allegations and the public from criminal cops. It also makes a cop far less likely to commit a crime just like the camera does with everyone else.

I agreed, so not sure why the follow up.
Dan8267 says

Storage is damn cheap. The government easily spends a hundred times as much on domestic spying then the costs of storing all the body cam videos for at least 20 years, more than enough time to find any crimes committed.

Agreed. My point was smaller police departments don't have the money. There's very little political will to take money away from salaries for people in these smaller departments for electronics and the required storage. And of course the federal government can and does what you're saying. But that's not what I'm talking about. A lot of the police problems happen in tiny towns where the hick cop will pull over the black guy just driving through. It would very likely take the federal government mandating cameras and storage guidelines for these small towns or just outright paying for it. What contractor you think is getting that job?
Dan8267 says

The 1990s called and they want your objections back.

You do realize that a good majority of towns across America with under 5k people, very likely are still living in the 90's? It's not my objection, it's just the reality of the situation. Many of these small towns can't even get decent, reliable internet access. So until ISP's feel like it's worth it to invest in these areas, they're going to be stuck in the 90's and their village boards won't vote for police cameras and storage for the videos. This isn't political will for these town. Most trustees in small town probably get less then $1k a year for their time. So it's not about the money. It's about balancing a budget that literally comes down to 100's of dollars for most small towns. You're not getting 3 body cams at probably $1,000 a piece. Then the storage. The Fed can buy storage at massive quantities and vendors will bend over backwards to get that business. Small towns and cities don't get that benefit. http://www.govtech.com/em/safety/Police-Body-Cam-Installation.html Dan8267 says

6. Prisoners should have access to review the video and flag crimes. Who's better to police the police than prisoners? They have the time and motivation.

I don't get this one at all. A biased, convicted prisoners should have zero influence on anything. This is a bad idea.

This is another thing you don't understand about technology. Crowdsourcing works regardless of the intent of the users. It's a proven strategy.

I'm fine with crowdsourcing. Just not to inmates. I get there may be people wrongly convicted. And I know they can go online once they're out and do this. But why would you give some truly bad guys, videos of a bunch of crimes being committed? You don't think any of them would get some ideas from the videos for future crimes? There are plenty of ways to crowdsource this to the public without involving criminals/inmates.
Dan8267 says

As I've said, political will is always the problem.

It isn't though on this issue. You can't fine people based on others actions that are out of their control. This wouldn't stand any legal test whatsoever. What you're saying is you'll fine the detective trying to solve a murder sitting at a desk because beat cop Joe just shot a guy for no reason. This has absolutely nothing to do with political will. You honestly have fair view points and ideas most the time. This one is just insane though.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

3. I don't like criminals. Fuck them. If I saw a criminal dying on the street, I would not call 911. I would tell him to have a nice day.

And this is why you are far worse than all but a damn few criminals.

Furthermore, this would make you a criminal in some places, those that have Good Samaritan laws.

he he he he. I love being evil. You are right about the Good Samaritan laws. I would actually call 911 so as not to get into trouble with the law. But I would pretend I couldn't hear, and hang up. he he he.


Dan8267 says

Also, you are certainly a criminal.

I know. Last weekend I actually got a parking ticket after 10 years. It was at the Del Mar dog beach. Hey, I didn't know I was supposed to pay for the fucking parking. I did not see any signs. So unfair. It was a $43.00 parking ticket. Can someone tell me how this criminal can get out of paying a parking ticket?

Dan8267 says

Finally, protecting the rights of criminals is the only way to protect the rights of the innocent.

Now that's funny. Shooting criminals is the best way of protecting the innocent. And I mean hard core criminals, not someone who got caught smoking a joint.

Reminder: DC spends about $20k per pupil. Some say several thousand more. That's small elite picturesque Liberal Arts College tuition for the privileged level money.

Per pupil. Every single indigent mother and child receives a place to live, foot stamps, etc.

Vietnamese working 70 hours a week still get their 2 kids scholarships and entrance to Ivy or near-Ivy Schools. How come fatasses with no job at all can't help their kids be successful with all that time to devote to childrearing?

Also, one look at these Bastard Factories and it's clear they're not starving to death when their ass takes up two bus seats.

No, money is NOT the issue.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Vietnamese working 70 hours a week still get their 2 kids scholarships and entrance to Ivy or near-Ivy Schools. How come fatasses with no job at all can't help their kids be successful with all that time to devote to childrearing?

Because the fat ass dads go by a rule.......Fuck and forget.


TwoScoopsMcGee says

No, money is NOT the issue.

It is an issue for those who have to pay.

Being a "victim" is emotionally comforting.

However, ALL groups like to play victim.

Strategist says

Because the fat ass dads go by a rule.......Fuck and forget.

No, it's because the nasty ho bags only fuck Thugs. Hence all the guys want to be Thugs, so they can get laid by the only women they encounter regularly.

The bulls go where the cows are.

Dan8267 says

1. The courts are corrupt and will not prosecute criminal cops. The only solution to this is a separate court system to try cops. The existing court system will not prosecute cops because their power is enforced by cops.
2. The court system is designed to maximize profits, not justice.
3. Poor people get shit legal representation.
4. Adjusted for poverty, blacks get far more time and are prosecuted far more often than whites especially in drug laws. This is the racist part.
5. The war on drug was created to prevent blacks from voting. This is also a racist part.
6. The penal system is designed to maximize recidivism because recidivism is profitable to the courts and the prison industry.
7. There are perverse financial incentives for police, courts, and prison guards.

I agree with everything, except #4, which I am not sure about with a caveat "adjusted for poverty". Not adjusted for poverty, yes. Adjusted for poverty, I think no but I can not be 100% sure. There is an interesting investigation, if I understand, peer-reviewed, which may be relevant and which shows opposite attitude of police to what is usually perceived.

It’s the third time researchers at Washington State — Lois James, Stephen M. James and Bryan J. Vila — have set up simulations to monitor the differing reactions of police when confronted by white or black suspects. And all three times, they found that officers took significantly more time to fire their weapons if the subject was black, according to their latest report, “The Reverse Racism Effect,” to be published in the journal Criminology & Public Policy.
It’s a complex subject, dating back to a 1974 study which concluded that “the police have one trigger finger for whites and another for blacks.” A 1978 report found that 60 percent of black suspects shot by the police carried handguns, compared with 35 percent of white suspects. In 2001, a statistical study showed that black people comprised 12 percent of the population but committed 43 percent of the killings of officers.

But there has also been a contrary narrative, that officers are hesitant to fire at black suspects, starting with a 1977 analysis of reports from major metropolitan departments which found officers fired more shots at white suspects than at black suspects, possibly because of “public sentiment concerning treatment of blacks.” And in 2004, David Klinger at the University of Missouri-St. Louis interviewed more than 100 officers and found “evidence of increased wariness about using deadly force against black suspects for fear of how it would be perceived and the associated consequences.”

WookieMan says

Agreed. My point was smaller police departments don't have the money.

The hardware is cheap. The software and database should be national and ran by the federal government. No costs to local municipalities. Paid for with general federal tax revenue.

WookieMan says

You do realize that a good majority of towns across America with under 5k people, very likely are still living in the 90's?

Irrelevant. Amazon still charges them the same prices. A hard drive shipped to bumblefuck, Idaho costs no more than the same model shipped to New York City. Even hick towns benefit from globalization.

WookieMan says

You're not getting 3 body cams at probably $1,000 a piece.

Try body cams at $10 each, maybe less than $1 each. Any more and you should have me paid $1 million / year to run the whole damn program. I'll save the taxpayers tons of money. I know some secrets. They are called mass production and bulk purchases. If I can buy a single drone with a camera for less than $30 bucks I can equip every cop and every state-issue gun in the nation with a body cam for less than that per cop. The guns don't even have to fly.

Just imagine the savings for having the government own the factory producing the cameras. With mass production and no profit taking, the hardware is damn cheap. Far cheaper than a single hour of pay for a cop.

WookieMan says

Just not to inmates.

Present a compelling counterargument. There is no downside to crowdsourcing the review of the videos even to prisoners regardless of whether or not the prisoners are criminals.

WookieMan says

You don't think any of them would get some ideas from the videos for future crimes?

Not a compelling argument. Do you expect a felon to hatch a plan to commit crimes by becoming a cop?

If anything watching the videos of so many arrests would instill in a criminal the futility of attempting to get away with crime. Every scientific study ever conducted has shown that while the severity of punishment has absolutely no deterrence on crime, the perceived likelihood of being caught is a huge deterrent. A side benefit of my plan would be greatly reduced crime precisely because the criminals would view countless hours of criminals being caught.

WookieMan says

You can't fine people based on others actions that are out of their control.

I'm not. I'm fining police for contributing to the crimes with the blue wall. Just about all cops protect criminal cops from prosecution and prevent victims and bystanders from fighting back against criminal cops. This makes them legally and morally accountable for the crimes. It's called conspiracy. It is very appropriate to not only fine them and to seize their assets to pay for victim compensation and future crime prevention, but also to imprison those conspirators for their part in the crime. It also finally provides an incentive for cops to not tolerate criminal behavior in their ranks, something that is sorely needed.

Civilians are subject to arrest for harboring fugitives and for obstructing justice. It should be no different for cops.

WookieMan says

This wouldn't stand any legal test whatsoever.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that you can be stripped and raped at the complete arbitrary discretion of a police officer conducting a traffic stop. You have no idea how lax legal tests in our country are. My proposal is infinitely more reasonable than Florence v. Burlington.

WookieMan says

What you're saying is you'll fine the detective trying to solve a murder sitting at a desk because beat cop Joe just shot a guy for no reason.

What the detective is working on is irrelevant. The harm done by allowing cops to cover up and conspire to obstruct justice is far greater than the harm in fining cops who are part of the culture that commits such coverups. The fact is that there is an unwritten but universal law in American police department that the criminal behavior of cops is covered up by other cops, and people who attempt to stop a crime being committed by a cop are shot by other cops, and people who report a crime like rape by a cop to a judge in court are arrested on the spot for merely reporting that crime. So yes, it's more than fair. It's reasonable. And it is by far the lesser of the two injustices. Furthermore, the police do have the ability to change this culture and that most certainly would stop such fines from ever being issued.

It sure as hell is far more just than our current system. And preventing a single rape or murder is more than worth the cost. This is a no-brainer.

Finally, given all the rights that were taken from us to fight terrorism, this concession is pretty damn minor to fight terrorism from cops.
Strategist says

Shooting criminals is the best way of protecting the innocent.

Does that include criminal cops? Some vigilantes would agree with you then. Would you call such vigilantes heroes? Do you consider the Black Panthers heroes?

me123 says

You should be glad you weren't shot, according to Dan, cops shoot ALL criminals.

A moronic straw man argument. I never said anything remotely like that.

What I said was that criminal cops should be prosecuted for the crimes they commit. You don't have the balls to argue against my real statements, you coward, piggy. That's why you hide behind alts.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Shooting criminals is the best way of protecting the innocent.

Does that include criminal cops?

Yes.

Dan8267 says

Some vigilantes would agree with you then. Would you call such vigilantes heroes? Do you consider the Black Panthers heroes?

Some vigilantes could be heroes, but not the Black Panthers. They are criminals like the KKK. Just shoot them all.

Dan8267 says

You do realize that a good majority of towns across America with under 5k people, very likely are still living in the 90's?

Irrelevant. Amazon still charges them the same prices. A hard drive shipped to bumblefuck, Idaho costs no more than the same model shipped to New York City. Even hick towns benefit from globalization.

You didn't get the point. That's fine. You clearly haven't been involved in a small government body. Try to find $500 when your water tower needs $800k in repairs. You have 3 maintenance vehicles, 2 of them being snow plows and one is broken during budgeting. You have 3,000' of roads that need to be replaced in one summer. All the while you're a trustee or mayor getting paid $500 annually.

Whoops! There goes that $500 for any body cams because residents will shit all over you cause the road in front of their house is crap. Their water is fucked up. The snow doesn't get plowed. Unless mandated by the federal government, small municipalities are never going to have body cams. And sheriff country bumpkin is probably the issue in many of these police brutality cases. They see a "nigger" in their town and need to do something about it.

You have good ideas Dan, but none of them address the core problem of driving through most of this country (mid and major cities are a tiny fraction of our land mass). Small towns aren't going to implement. You can't just say because of logic and X, Y, Z. We still have religions with a billion followers that would very likely be okay with killing gays and at a minimum would have zero problem with them being jailed. While I appreciate the logic, we live a world that is not logical. It never will be.

Dan8267 says

Try body cams at $10 each, maybe less than $1 each. Any more and you should have me paid $1 million / year to run the whole damn program. I'll save the taxpayers tons of money. I know some secrets. They are called mass production and bulk purchases. If I can buy a single drone with a camera for less than $30 bucks I can equip every cop and every state-issue gun in the nation with a body cam for less than that per cop. The guns don't even have to fly.

You really expect good quality with cheap Chinese junk for $10.00? If you do it, do it right.

Strategist says

You really expect good quality with cheap Chinese junk for $10.00? If you do it, do it right.

Even if you could do it for $10 a piece, government is so inefficient. They'll force you to have X parameters that only X company can conform with. Next thing you know they're $1k. This is how ANY form of government works. I can't remember who posted this here and I loved it, but people are gonna people.

WookieMan says

Strategist says

You really expect good quality with cheap Chinese junk for $10.00? If you do it, do it right.

Even if you could do it for $10 a piece, government is so inefficient. They'll force you to have X parameters that only X company can conform with. Next thing you know they're $1k. This is how ANY form of government works. I can't remember who posted this here and I loved it, but people are gonna people.

I would agree. Governments are very inefficient, which is why we need less government.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Shooting criminals is the best way of protecting the innocent.

Does that include criminal cops?

Yes.

If you are willing to shoot criminal cops dead without trial, then what the hell objection do you have to me wanting them to stand before a jury in an honest court?

WookieMan says

Whoops! There goes that $500

The amount of money it takes to record everything on body cameras is utterly insignificant compare to the amount of money spent on any of the following:
- the war on drugs
- keeping people, including innocents, locked up
- lost wages as people wait for trial
- the government's current domestic spying (hell, use that budget if you like)
- the military hardware used by police forces
- paid leave for criminal cops
- lawsuits from victims

A money argument is simply wrong. It does not add up.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Shooting criminals is the best way of protecting the innocent.

Does that include criminal cops?

Yes.

If you are willing to shoot criminal cops dead without trial, then what the hell objection do you have to me wanting them to stand before a jury in an honest court?

I don't. I disagree with your notion that most cops are bad cops.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Shooting criminals is the best way of protecting the innocent.

Does that include criminal cops?

Yes.

If you are willing to shoot criminal cops dead without trial, then what the hell objection do you have to me wanting them to stand before a jury in an honest court?

I don't. I disagree with your notion that most cops are bad cops.

You are arguing with a guy that believes police brutality and abuse is worse than it was 20 years ago despite massively increased federal, judicial, and civilian oversight compared to 20 years ago including the past 8 under a federal justice department headed by a black man appointed by a black president.

Btw, not sure why a reporter out there can't ask for Colin Kaeperpicks response to that statement.