Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Cavatt]

Of course it didn't. But there wasn't anything close to the level of discussion there is now, and Obama had zero obligation or pressure to comment on this thing at all. Which would have been the wiser course.



I've been saying consistently that there are two sides to the issue, and that if you don't address both 1) police misconduct and 2) false allegations of police misconduct/racism, the problem is going to get worse.

You consistently describe the issue as being just police misconduct/racism, and haven't said a peep about the harm caused by false/bogus accusations of racism.

In fact...do you recall President Obama ever talking about the harm caused by false accusations of racism, that people should not use racism as an easy excuse when the real problem was their own conduct?

Police are consistently completely cleared of any wrongdoing, despite not following the procedures of their own department. So, your argument works exactly in reverse as well.

When police that have done wrong suffer 0 consequences and are let off scott free while unarmed victims lay dead, it makes the situation worse, just as you argue that false accusations of racism make the situation worse.

If you want the people to trust the police there must be accountability. I don't believe there is right now, but even if you believed there was, the appearance at the very least is that there isn't. You need to at least have them say, "this officer clearly did not follow protocol and will be dismissed" or suspended or put on leave without pay, but they don't do any of those things. Just nothing.

A new category for police who kill people on the job through negligence that isn't manslaughter or murder, so they could even be charged with a less crime would be useful, but no one is even asking for this. It is continually "trust us" while there appears to be no way to get justice from the system.

I mean there are massive pay outs in cash for excessive force and wrongful death, but no criminal charges. You can't pay out all this money from the state and then say you did nothing wrong on the other hand.

 

[David.]

Police are consistently completely cleared of any wrongdoing, despite not following the procedures of their own department. So, your argument works exactly in reverse as well.

When police that have done wrong suffer 0 consequences and are let off scott free while unarmed victims lay dead, it makes the situation worse, just as you argue that false accusations of racism make the situation worse.

If you want the people to trust the police there must be accountability. I don't believe there is right now, but even if you believed there was, the appearance at the very least is that there isn't. You need to at least have them say, "this officer clearly did not follow protocol and will be dismissed" or suspended or put on leave without pay, but they don't do any of those things. Just nothing.

A new category for police who kill people on the job through negligence that isn't manslaughter or murder, so they could even be charged with a less crime would be useful, but no one is even asking for this. It is continually "trust us" while there appears to be no way to get justice from the system.

I mean there are massive pay outs in cash for excessive force and wrongful death, but no criminal charges. You can't pay out all this money from the state and then say you did nothing wrong on the other hand.

I Agree with the suggestion of a new charge.

I Think the officer in the castille case was fired, right?

 

[Cavatt]

I Agree with the suggestion of a new charge.

I Think the officer in the castille case was fired, right?

Yeah he was fired. So he done wrong, but nothing criminal. I don't understand why he can't get convicted of wanton endangerment or criminal negligence or some such thing.

You should probably be fired if you kill someone by mistake in any job I would think.

 

[David.]

Yeah he was fired. So he done wrong, but nothing criminal. I don't understand why he can't get convicted of wanton endangerment or criminal negligence or some such thing.

You should probably be fired if you kill someone by mistake in any job I would think.

Because no one would ever take the job. his job is literally to just handle these situations. Mistakes happen.

 

[Cavatt]

Because no one would ever take the job. his job is literally to just handle these situations. Mistakes happen.

Don't police say if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about? Funny how that goes out the window when they are held to the same standard.

I guess I don't know why it has to be all of nothing. We know that police being above the law is not a good thing. Do you support blanket immunity for police? I think a lot of us are asking the question how bad does the mistake have to be to be considered criminal?

I would personally be happy with better training.

 

[Huber.]

Don't police say if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about? Funny how that goes out the window when they are held to the same standard.

I guess I don't know why it has to be all of nothing. We know that police being above the law is not a good thing. Do you support blanket immunity for police? I think a lot of us are asking the question how bad does the mistake have to be to be considered criminal?

I would personally be happy with better training.

Until that training you deem suitable isn't enough and you claim they need something else and so on and so on.

 

[Whittaker]

Because no one would ever take the job.

Don't think so.
Police and firefighter jobs are highly sought after in much of the country due the the very good benefits and retirement packages.

 

[David.]

Until that training you deem suitable isn't enough and you claim they need something else and so on and so on.

You do realize these guys are literally in danger, always, right?

What you guys expect, which is perfection in extremely adverse conditions, is unrealistic. there are zero jobs where human error doesn't occur, let alone in absurd conditions.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

.

I mean there are massive pay outs in cash for excessive force and wrongful death, but no criminal charges. You can't pay out all this money from the state and then say you did nothing wrong on the other hand.

I think I mentioned this before, and I have a lot of sympathy with your point. The problem is that the burdens of proof are necessarily different. Criminal acts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and require a criminal intent. Civil actions require only negligence, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. That's clearly a gap, but I don't see any way to avoid it. You could require beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard in civil cases, but I'm not sure who that would benefit.

As @David said, police officer is a job where they are supposed to put themselves in situations where they may have only an instant to make a life and death decisions. I think imposing criminal liability for someone in that position who makes an honest mistake in judgment is not good policy.

No cop is going to shoot someone if they believe they'll lose their job, and become a hated household name because of that. There is already enough of a disincentive for such shootings without sending them to jail for making an honest mistake at work.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Don't think so.
Police and firefighter jobs are highly sought after in much of the country due the the very good benefits and retirement packages.

That's true. But that's also under the current laws that provide a limited immunity for cops who make good faith errors in judgment. I suspect you're right in that a lot of people would still take those jobs even if that was eliminated. I just strongly suspect they'd be much more likely to avoid situations where violence is likely.

In other words, they'd do more of what some cops are half-doing in places like Chicago and Baltimore. Just going in to investigate crimes after they've occurred rather than trying to stop them in progress.

To put it differently, why not extend the exact same rule to the military? If you kill even one citizen because of some error somewhere, it's a criminal offense.

 

[Cavatt]

Until that training you deem suitable isn't enough and you claim they need something else and so on and so on.

Ahh moving the goal posts so I don't have to?

For real, police do a terrible job of de-escalation. They have no training in it. I understand the cop is boss, and that is how I treat them.

However, there are plenty of incidences where police needlessly escalate the situation and put peole in choke holds when they are not involved in anything violent. Tamir Rice is a great example where they could have used the loudspeaker in the cruiser to say "drop your weapon" instead they rolled up within 10 feet putting themselves in harms way, and shot him within 2 sec without giving him a chance to surrender. In what world is that proper protocol?

Personally, i think a little training on how people act in stressful situations would go a long way. How about PSA's about how to act when approached by the police?

Instead we just get "people should know how to act"

and "the officer feared for his life and made a slight mistake by emptying his clip into the unarmed suspect"

Both of those are not good enough. Instead it is pitting people against police. It is not only the protestors that are driving that wedge is what I am saying. Militarization of the police force and poor training have a significant hand in it.

 

[Cavatt]

I think I mentioned this before, and I have a lot of sympathy with your point. The problem is that the burdens of proof are necessarily different. Criminal acts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and require a criminal intent. Civil actions require only negligence, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. That's clearly a gap, but I don't see any way to avoid it. You could require beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard in civil cases, but I'm not sure who that would benefit.

As @David said, police officer is a job where they are supposed to put themselves in situations where they may have only an instant to make a life and death decisions. I think imposing criminal liability for someone in that position who makes an honest mistake in judgment is not good policy.

No cop is going to shoot someone if they believe they'll lose their job, and become a hated household name because of that. There is already enough of a disincentive for such shootings without sending them to jail for making an honest mistake at work.

I think this is very reasonable. Why are people against better training to help police make better snap decisions and de-escalate the situation. It is totally binary, you are with us or you are against us.

Also, shouldn't you be upset by the wasteful spending involved as a conservative? We are paying these penalties. I think it is a waste of money personally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/police-misconduct-settlements_n_7423386.html

Somehow these financial penalties don't dissuade police either. Maybe because they have no stake in it? What if a percentage came out of the pensions of the officers involved? Just kidding. they would never make them take responsibility for that.

 

[Wrathe]

I think this is very reasonable. Why are people against better training to help police make better snap decisions and de-escalate the situation. It is totally binary, you are with us or you are against us.

Also, shouldn't you be upset by the wasteful spending involved as a conservative? We are paying these penalties. I think it is a waste of money personally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/police-misconduct-settlements_n_7423386.html

Somehow these financial penalties don't dissuade police either. Maybe because they have no stake in it? What if a percentage came out of the pensions of the officers involved? Just kidding. they would never make them take responsibility for that.

I don't think there's anything wrong w/ training, I just worry your syllabus is using a different philosophical cornerstone. I'm not declaring, either, I'm asking, but our current force isn't really philosophically designed for de-escalation, is it? The cornerstone of American Police is they are THE authority, and you need to respect it.

It's like parenting my kids. My first kid, I could go authoritarian on. Do this, don't do this, you will respect my authority! Whatever, you know, he'd just do whatever Mom and Dad said. My 2nd kid is a "tester". Everything. Tested. It's exhausting. Absolutely will NOT respond to authority, constantly challenges it, etc. A battle of wills w/ him is quite a treat and not something used often. There are other better ways of working w/ him. The problem is, this is something I have the luxury of dealing w/ over time as a parent. There can't be conflict or delay in those critical moments. That's the training they receive.

I think it's an interesting question though, if our approach should be less militaristic. I would think it's a tough pitch in the post-9/11 era, especially.

 

[Tornicade]

You do realize these guys are literally in danger, always, right?

What you guys expect, which is perfection in extremely adverse conditions, is unrealistic. there are zero jobs where human error doesn't occur, let alone in absurd conditions.

A lot of these unjustified or controversial shooting involve cops that are well thought of and have been on the job 5-7 years.

Officer Castile suddenly after a thousand stops forgot how to run a routine car stop.


I think they should do the like the military and rotate these officers out of the street .

These guys are need some time to reflect and decompress


Also a lot of the cops join fresh out of high school or college. Get married and have kids.

Unless the cop business is a family tradition these guys have no idea what family life is like while serving the law.

Also if they had career goals to get off the street and after so many years they haven't made any progresss. I would imagination there would be a lot of frustration.


this study from 89 on the Vermont police department showed

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wpor_ltpov.pdf

from 26- 40 is when you have more officers going than staying.


the biggest differential was amongst officers 26-30


still 66% of the officers leaving did so because of pay and benefits.

I am all for addressing the issues that create these situations where a cop turns a routine stop into a homicide which is very well what happened in the Castille case.

but comparing roughing up someone out of frustration with killing someone is a huge chasm and unjustified shootings should always have consequences.

 

[Cavatt]

I don't think there's anything wrong w/ training, I just worry your syllabus is using a different philosophical cornerstone. I'm not declaring, either, I'm asking, but our current force isn't really philosophically designed for de-escalation, is it? The cornerstone of American Police is they are THE authority, and you need to respect it.

It's like parenting my kids. My first kid, I could go authoritarian on. Do this, don't do this, you will respect my authority! Whatever, you know, he'd just do whatever Mom and Dad said. My 2nd kid is a "tester". Everything. Tested. It's exhausting. Absolutely will NOT respond to authority, constantly challenges it, etc. A battle of wills w/ him is quite a treat and not something used often. There are other better ways of working w/ him. The problem is, this is something I have the luxury of dealing w/ over time as a parent. There can't be conflict or delay in those critical moments. That's the training they receive.

I think it's an interesting question though, if our approach should be less militaristic. I would think it's a tough pitch in the post-9/11 era, especially.

I guess, but it seems to be effective. This headline is sort of misleading because in the article it mostly talks about how de-escalation tecniques help and how stuff like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.7a9cf8a81d12

"New York City’s SWAT team, its Emergency Services Unit, is widely cited as a model in calming tense situations and passing its training on to the city’s thousands of patrol officers. Between training and modified policies over the years, New York police went from shooting 994 people in 1972 to 79 people in 2014. The unit’s trainers helped PERF create its training.


“It saves lives,” said Chief Barry M. Barnard of Prince William County, Va., who has appointed a captain at his county’s police academy to instill the “PERF 30.”"

I guess we can disagree about whether it is effective or not, but that mostly seems to be based on feeling and not numbers. Why not do what works? Routinely the higher your level of training as a police officer, the less likely you are to use deadly force because you will have the tactical advantage every time. Shooting your gun always carries the risk of shooting someone by accident that is in the are as well.


another one

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/deescalation-policing-works.html

Listen, I am not saying don't shoot someone who is coming after you with a sword, but barking and coming into the situation at 11 isn't always a good tactic.