Meet George Floyd

by cofty 75 Replies latest social current

  • TD
    TD

    LHG

    A few observations in no particular order.

    This officer drives by an 8.75 million dollar home (According to Zillow) every morning going to wherever he goes. The affluence of the area is genuine.

    Even if you write off groups like the ACLU as lunatics, there are still many older and retired police officers who share my concern. This is not a direct constitutional violation, but it certainly violates the spirit of the document.

    I agree that the public is no longer friendly to the police. Who can blame them? Shooting an unarmed woman in the back (Another incident in my affluent neck of the woods) has that affect on people.

    The current situation seems to make for strange alliances. There are people here on JWN who appear to be conservative defending police incidents that were soundly condemned at the time they happened by both the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA.


  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    The heighten militarization of the police force in the US is a response to the heighten weaponry force used by unlawful criminals, such as what has been seen and used by terrorist's massacres.

    A case of meeting fire power with fire power as it were.

    One shouldn't make an excuse for illegally killing a person by brute force by an acting police officer doing their duty and the courts in this case I'm sure will reconfirm that.

  • TD
    TD

    Finkelstein

    The heighten militarization of the police force in the US is a response to the heighten weaponry force used by unlawful criminals

    The National Firearms Act of 1934 was largely a response to the possession of fully automatic weapons in the hands of organized criminals. Police were getting into (and losing) shootouts with criminals carrying Thompson and Browning automatic rifles. Crouching behind the door of a police vehicle is not even a defense against the latter weapon.

    That was 80+ years ago and the six shot .38 revolver remained the standard service weapon for many decades thereafter. More potent weaponry was broken out only when the situation called for it.

    Ninety years ago anybody with the money could buy a BAR. Today weapons like that are strictly regulated, so I do not agree with the cause and effect you suggest above.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    So you dont think police should carry equal opposing weapons like what the recent terrorists were using in their public massacres ?

    So if a terrorist started shooting up people in night club with a AR-15 with a high capacity mag attached, you would expect the police to take that terrorist down with their single shot hand guns ?

  • TD
    TD

    Finkelstein

    So if a terrorist started shooting up people in night club with a AR-15 with a high capacity mag attached, you would expect the police to take that terrorist down with their single shot hand guns ?

    As I said, more potent weaponry was broken out only when the need arose. For years and years and years this was the policy and it sufficed.

    Your scenario above is a far cry from a half dozen officers serving a search warrant in full riot gear and real M4's; shooting the family pets as a matter of course and tossing flash bangs into rooms occupied by nobody but children.

    I don't want to pollute this thread with bloody and graphic videos of what I'm talking about so instead will quote from a perspective piece written by Officer Patrick Skinner, a former CIA operations officer and current police officer in Savannah, GA:

    -----------------------------

    "When I left the CIA, I no longer wanted to fight our “war on terror.” For seven years after the 9/11 attacks, I served as an operations officer in the CIA counterterrorism center. My role in our efforts overseas was small but left a large impression on me: We were creating more tensions and threats than we countered or mitigated."

    "I’m now a cop in my hometown, Savannah, Ga., and I don’t want to fight another war — our “war on crime.” But I’m not going anywhere. I’m just speaking up, to propose that we end what never was a war to begin with. We need to change our mind-set about what it means to “police” in America."

    "For decades, the United States has funded and created police departments that resemble occupying military forces, unable to protect and serve. We armed ourselves literally and spiritually for a war on crime, and to quote Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, “And the war came.” What we now see deployed in many cities and towns is anti-policing. It’s the death of true community police work and, too often, the death of our neighbors. The well-documented militarization of American police departments has inevitably produced officers who see themselves and their roles as “warriors” or “punishers” or “sheepdogs.” Much of what our society finds so distressing and unacceptable in police interactions with their neighbors — disrespect, anger, frustration and violence — is not a result of “flawed” training; it’s a result of training for war."

    "So I began my career as a local cop by calling people my neighbors, in my reports and in my conversations. I approached every 911 call from that space and mind-set. I still do. As I handled more and more calls for service, I began to savor the differences between my job as a CIA operations officer overseas in our war on terror and now as a local cop in what I was refusing to accept was a war on crime."

    "Refusing to fight this war on crime has, improbable as it seems at age 49, become the fight of my life. And I am not alone. Because my neighbors are not just the point of being a local cop; they are how I can be a local cop. It is their consent that enables me. It is their trust that empowers me. And it is our truth that drives me: that we all matter, or none of us do."

    -Full article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/03/beat-cop-militarized-policing-cia/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

  • cofty
    cofty

    That hits the nail on the head TD.

    The principle of 'policing by consent' is central.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    I thinks its beginning to sink in through public awareness that police officers needs regulatory laws enacted while they are actively on duty.

    The list of people who have been killed inadvertently while being subdued for possible arrest is alarmingly, there was the Tazzer problem a few years back, now its gun fire and choke holds.

  • Simon
    Simon
    The principle of 'policing by consent' is central.

    There's a danger that the only people who get to give consent are the people who want to commit crime. Right now we're only seeing and giving a voice to the most vocal (and often destructive) but they don't get to speak for everyone and often don't even live in the communities involved.

    We live in a democracy and if people don't like how policing works they can change it - just vote for people suggesting a different plan.

    The reality is that the majority of people want tougher policing rather than lax policing or the "no policing" which is now being discussed as though it's remotely realistic.

    Here's what happens when the police stop policing as zealously: more minorities die:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/07/12/baltimore-police-not-noticing-crime-after-freddie-gray-wave-killings-followed/744741002/

  • TD
    TD

    Cofty, if I'm not mistaken, was referring to the Peelian principle.

  • Quetzal
    Quetzal

    @simon

    The reality is that the majority of people want tougher policing rather than lax policing or the "no policing" which is now being discussed as though it's remotely realistic.

    More people want efficient policing and not necessarily tougher policing. You can not deal with every major societal problem through policing. Law makers can do a lot to ease some of these problems. If you criminalize a lot of things in society, you will also need to be able to enforce those.

    During the Corvid19 lockdown in the UK, lawmakers made a mess and when the police tried to enforce, they were met a lot of backlash from the population. The lawmakers were at fault for making a law that wasn't clear and difficult to enforce and without adequate resources.

    Gay sex used to be illegal and policing it must have been a nightmare. Since the 20th century, criminal laws against adultery have become controversial, with most Western countries decriminalising adultery. What about marijuana? What about women being topless?

    You have a systemic problem that tougher policing will not solve.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit