patrick.net

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.

Strategist says

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

That is because you ignore the crime of conspiracy. Just about all cops obstruct justice and harbor the criminal cops. It's called the blue wall of silence. It's no different than obstructing the CIA's efforts to thwart a terrorist attack.

The fact is that if even 10% of cops were honest, the other 90% would not get away with their crimes. Even a tiny minority of honest cops would make it impossible for the systemic corruption we see in American police departments.

And again, America is the only western nation that has this problem. Our cops are more like North Korean cops than like European cops.

Fucking White Male says

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.

Are you seriously trying to make the dumb argument that racist is over because a black president was elected? That would be a damn stupid argument especially considering the fact that the black president in question drastically increased the war on drugs and domestic spying.

As for me, I base my beliefs on evidence, of which I have cited plenty. In contrast you have provide no evidence to support your assertions. So which of us is being irrational?

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

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

That is because you ignore the crime of conspiracy. Just about all cops obstruct justice and harbor the criminal cops. It's called the blue wall of silence. It's no different than obstructing the CIA's efforts to thwart a terrorist attack.

The fact is that if even 10% of cops were honest, the other 90% would not get away with their crimes. Even a tiny minority of honest cops would make it impossible for the systemic corruption we see in American police departments.

And again, America is the only western nation that has this problem. Our cops are more like North Korean cops than like European cops.

Just about all cops obstruct justice? Prove it. Don't give me your bizarre logic, just prove it with facts.


Dan8267 says

As for me, I base my beliefs on evidence, of which I have cited plenty. In contrast you have provide no evidence to support your assertions. So which of us is being irrational?

You base your beliefs on myths and bias. That is not evidence.

Strategist says

Just about all cops obstruct justice? Prove it.

What would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

As for me, I base my beliefs on evidence, of which I have cited plenty. In contrast you have provide no evidence to support your assertions. So which of us is being irrational?

You base your beliefs on myths and bias. That is not evidence.

Wrong again. I cited specific victims and court cases as well as statistics in many threads.

me123 says

Cherry picking singular events aren't valid for your blanket statements.

Cite one statement I made that was false, piggy. You can't do that.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Just about all cops obstruct justice? Prove it.

What would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

That's your problem. Try research and surveys that are generally acceptable.
By the way lets assume for a second your claims are true and almost all cops are bad cops. What do we do then?

Dan8267 says

Police brutality has become an incredibly polarising and contentious issue in American life.

Kapper was the first to describe why he was taking a knee.

Stevie Wonder on taking a knee: "Both knees in prayer for our planet, our future, our leaders of the world and our globe. Amen ..."

Bruce Maxwell, Oakland A's: " I’m kneeling for the people who don’t have a voice.

“This goes beyond the black and Hispanic communities because right now we have a racial divide that’s being practiced from the highest power we have in this country saying it’s basically OK to treat people differently."

So there is obviously no standardization of the rationale for taking the knee, with explanations ranging from police brutality, to the nebulous offering of a "racial divide" as a rationale, to something wrong with our planet. What is lacking is an organized approach that could clearly state the problem in detail, back it up with statistics, and suggest metrics to determine if there is an improvement or not. And so this is just emoting that will do nothing except generate controversy. How can you plan to improve that which is not clearly defined?

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Just about all cops obstruct justice? Prove it.

What would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

That's your problem. Try research and surveys that are generally acceptable.

Try answering the question. What exactly would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

The blue wall of silence is accepted as indisputable fact by the general public and by all experts who study criminology and law enforcement. It's also as obviously true as almost all teenage boys think about sex.

Dan8267 says

That's your problem. Try research and surveys that are generally acceptable.

Try answering the question. What exactly would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

The blue wall of silence is accepted as indisputable fact by the general public and by all experts who study criminology and law enforcement.

Just not to the extent you believe. If you don't have proof, it's just your own personal belief no different than those who believe in God.

You still haven't answered the question. Since you reject general public consensus, expert testimony, countless examples, and common sense, what exactly would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

The answer is obviously nothing. If it weren't, you'd have answer it already. No evidence will convince you. That is why your opinions don't matter. They are based on willful ignorance.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

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

That is because you ignore the crime of conspiracy. Just about all cops obstruct justice and harbor the criminal cops. It's called the blue wall of silence. It's no different than obstructing the CIA's efforts to thwart a terrorist attack.

The fact is that if even 10% of cops were honest, the other 90% would not get away with their crimes. Even a tiny minority of honest cops would make it impossible for the systemic corruption we see in American police departments.

And again, America is the only western nation that has this problem. Our cops are more like North Korean cops than like European cops.

Fucking White Male says

You are arguing with a guy that believes police brutality and abuse is worse than it was 20 years...

So which is it dude? Is police brutality worse because Obama and Eric Holder are incompetent, or has police brutality and corruption diminished as civilian and federal oversight have massively increased?

Dan8267 says

You still haven't answered the question. Since you reject general public consensus, expert testimony, countless examples, and common sense, what exactly would constitute satisfactory proof to you?

The answer is obviously nothing. If it weren't, you'd have answer it already. No evidence will convince you. That is why your opinions don't matter. They are based on willful ignorance.

LOFL general public consensus? You are utterly delusional if you think your views on law enforcement are in line with general public consensus.

I don't even agree with strategist on this and I'll admit that his views are the ones in direct line with general public consensus.

Fucking White Male says

You are utterly delusional if you think your views on law enforcement are in line with general public consensus.

That's not what I said. Once more you make a straw man argument.

What I said was the blue code of silence is acknowledge by the general public because it's so fucking obvious. If you deny that, your are a liar. Everyone knows cops don't tell on cops.

Dan8267 says

Everyone knows cops don't tell on cops.

This is very likely true in most cases. I know you've outlined how you think it could be solved in previous comments on this post. Some of those ideas are being implemented in many departments across the country and are good ones, you won't hear me argue that. But at some point, your more extreme fixes to the problems would result in there being no police. Like cops not personally involved in a beating/shooting being held financial liable for those that committed said crimes in the same department. At some point, even the salary and pension incentive of being a cop goes away when your idea gets implemented. No one would be a cop. Or there would be too few and things ultimately get worse for society. So it's got to be a balanced approach is all I'm saying.

And the blue code of silence does exist. Unfortunately it exist in almost every profession. Back when this was a housing forum, real estate brokers were the target. They of course don't have the ability/opportunity to be judge, jury and execution like a cop. But they are involved in the largest financial decision 95% of people will make. Listing and buyer agents basically screwing both parties just to get deals done. Oh and the lenders are real straight shooters too ;) I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but a poor choice on housing or real estate investment and literally destroy people. I'm guessing you don't like Realtors either, but just trying to think of something somewhat comparable.

Ultimately everything in our society is flawed in one way or another. Time usually fixes this. We got slavery fixed. Got civil rights fixed. And ultimately the police brutality issue is going to be in the rear view mirror (except for a few outliers). It just takes time. What's unfortunately completely reversed from the mid 20th century is black crime. For some reason time hasn't been kind to that demographic.

The OP was about black on black crime being high leading to higher police interactions. Instead of just hitting this issue from the police perspective, what suggestions do you have to improve the outlook for the black community? It's not simply the fault of the police things got this way. I'd like to think if the crime was lower in black communities these interactions would decrease and therefore so would the police brutality. I'm not directing this at anyone here personally, but it's not racist to talk about blacks and their issues. Most races have some real shitty people in them. How do we help the shitty people?

WookieMan says

your more extreme fixes

Extreme is a word thrown around to discredit ideas and people without justification. It's become the most abused word in the English language over the past 20 years.

Feel free to make any specific, clear argument why any of my ideas won't work or are unethical. I'll gladly defend them, and if I fail, recant them. However, I've thought about the problem a lot, so making a compelling argument that these ideas are bad isn't going to be easy. I've got damn good justifications for every one of them.

WookieMan says

Ultimately everything in our society is flawed in one way or another. Time usually fixes this.

No. Time by itself fixes nothing. Nor is it acceptable to tolerate a great injustice and simply wait for the injustice to end by itself. It would have been immoral to allowed the Holocaust to continue until the Germans decided it was a bad idea. Furthermore some evils can be very stable over very long periods of time.

In any case, the message of the take a knee protests is 100% correct. Cops who commit murder or rape need to be prosecuted like anyone else would be. Otherwise America is not even remotely a nation that upholds the principle of justice for all.

There is no even slightly justifiable argument against the take a knee protests. One side is simply completely wrong just like it is often so in history. Examples of this include the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, slavery, segregation, marriage equality, and every genocide ever committed. Not every issue has two valid sides.

WookieMan says

The OP was about black on black crime being high leading to higher police interactions.

The thesis of the original post is dead wrong. It proposed that the slaughter of innocent and unarmed blacks is entirely explained by more police interactions taking place in high crime areas. Both statistics and well documented cases of police verbally stating that they are hunting blacks utterly disprove that thesis. This is indisputable.

In any case, the message behind the take a knee movement is necessary to protect white lives as well because criminal cops do murder and rape white people as well.

WookieMan says

Instead of just hitting this issue from the police perspective, what suggestions do you have to improve the outlook for the black community?

Is my stance that criminal cops should be held to answer to the same laws the rest of us answer to invalidated if I cannot make suggestions to decrease crime in black neighborhoods? That's a non-sequitur.

It's also an entirely different subject that merits its own thread. Feel free to open one. It's irrelevant to the take a knee movement for the same reason that one woman committing a crime means that your daughter's rapists should not be prosecuted. There's no connection between the two.

As for suggestions, the only ones I have are well-known ones that many others have already suggested. Things like cameras everywhere, community policing instead of militarize policing, prosecuting criminal cops so the public can actually trust cops for once, anti-poverty programs, better education systems, and decriminalizing drugs and prostitution so that people can get help and have the protection of the law.

But I'm not going to go off on a tangent in this thread, so open another thread if you want to discuss that subject. In any case, solving that problem is not a per-requisite for stopping cops from raping and murdering. Nor does crime in poor black neighborhoods at all justify any of the fake outrage at the NFL players. That outrage is simply a cover for the shame that people feel because the public is now aware of their apathy regarding their fellow Americans. Not giving a damn about the rest of your tribe always lowers social status in the tribe. That's what the objections are really about.

WookieMan says

It's not simply the fault of the police things got this way.

The NFL players are not blaming the cops for the crimes in black neighborhoods. That said, the criminal behavior of cops and the courts protection of such criminals absolutely contributes to non-police violent crime because the victims of such crimes cannot go to the police for protection. Cops committing crimes destroys public trust and makes law enforcement far less effective. As such, the criminal cops are harming everyone, not just their direct victims.

What is entirely the fault of the police is the rampant crime committed by cops. It is cops who are committing such crimes, and it is cops behind the blue wall of silence, and it is cops preventing the victim and the public from physically stopping the other cops who are raping and murdering. All of that is the fault of cops.

It is also entirely the fault of judges and prosecutors who choosing to not prosecute cops who rape and murder. There is no excuse for that.