Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this

I think there's some truth to that despite the fact a guy holding a stolen gun isn't my idea of a great candidate to rally a banner around.

The very first post referenced "the Ferguson effect", or the idea that police are afraid to do their jobs now that there is easy access to video that can be spread via social media. Putting aside whether or not this actually exists or not - it seems unlikely to me, and it's pretty hotly disputed - we should talk about what is left unsaid with the concept. Namely that we're not considering how incredibly insulting that idea is to police officers, because the obvious implication to that idea that brutality and misconduct is so widely ingrained that now they can't work for fear of it being exposed.

I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.

 Ouze wrote:

I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.

Well said.

 Ouze wrote:

I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.

I'm a nurse. There are policies with patient and workplace privacy that are supposed to keep people from filming and photographing our interactions with patients. It is against the rules for a family member to use their phone to film us taking care of their dad/mom/child/whatever. But the reality is that there is really nothing stopping anyone from filming me without me knowing it. The person looking like they are playing on their phone could be recording the ER visit, the laptop could be recording, they could have a tape recorder. Anything I say and do could be filmed and it could be used in a lawsuit against me and my facility. But that I still do my job because I am pretty dang certain that I do it well and that I'm not breaking any rules. And heck, there have been plenty of days where I make as many decisions that could kill people as a cop.

The "Ferguson Effect", if it is real, has always existed for all these other high-stakes professions: firefighters, EMTs, physicians, nurses. It's really not something that is confined to the police, and, just like the police, if I was that worried about someone recording my mistakes then I shouldn't be in my profession.

I think that cameras are a useful tool for helping regulate officer behavior but they are not perfect, there are going to be times when they fail or don't happen to catch the fine details properly. Often when there's a police response it triggers a conflict/fight mode in people and they react in a highly emotionally which prompts behavior that they would otherwise not engage in, this is true of both the officers and people they are dealing with.

I know that when I was working both private security and as an auxiliary police officer people will often be perfectly fine until they see that a operated camera is present and upon seeing the camera it triggers a significant outburst and quite frequently they lash out violently. I don't quite understand what the root cause is but cameras often seem to escalate the situation with the public, even when the situation is just a friendly "hey keep things under control" type of interaction or otherwise polite conversation people start lashing out at the camera person especially if they've been drinking. Regardless of it it's police or civilian people typically don't like being recorded and they see it as threatening. Even when it's not being directed at them it will often trigger anger in nearby bystanders who aren't even involved, you bring a camera around for almost any reason and they get very angry.

They don't pay much mind to passive closed circuit type security cameras and in many cases aren't even aware of them, but body cameras or a camera actively being held by an operator draws a significant amount of ire even when there's nothing illegal or significant happening. Being actively recorded triggers something angry in people they will routinely explode and go after the camera man attempting to slap it out of their hands, attempt to break it or assault the operator. It happens even when you are holding well back and not being intrusive, people see the camera and it becomes the sole focus of their attention and they suddenly get a hair trigger. As we were issued cameras as part of our gear I've been on the negative receiving end of that many, many times and it's resulted in a lot of additional arrests that wouldn't have occurred if a camera wasn't present, since they would have simply got a warning and gone along their way, that is until they saw a camera active on an officer and decided to assault the officers over it.

I think that perhaps people see camera in the hands of authority as a presumption of guilt rather than as a tool to help ensure everyone is acting above board?


As far as the incident itself it would not surprise me to find out that he was on parole or had a warrant, especially if WI has a three strikes policy. In a lot of situations where people run or get in shoot outs it's because they are feeling they have nothing to lose. If they are looking at a return to jail with extended or permanent time due to a past record they are often feel pushed into a situation where they feel they have no option but attempt to flee or fight it out and are acting on a very emotional level where they throw reason out the window. (like refusing to drop a weapon despite being surrounded by armed officers) Extreme desperation and duress causes people to make some very illogical and often unhealthy choices.

Some of the most difficult arrests officers have to make are from people who are facing a return to jail over a very minor offense. It's often something simple like a traffic stop where in the majority of cases would just be a ticket or a warning, but having a warrant or parole violation suddenly pushes it into a danger zone situation because the person reacts in a blind panic.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.

I'm a nurse. There are policies with patient and workplace privacy that are supposed to keep people from filming and photographing our interactions with patients.

Doctor/patient (and associated) confidentiality is codified by law for the protection of the patient. It doesn't really compare to police/suspect interaction, especially given that police/suspect interaction is designed to gather evidence to be used in a court of law.

 d-usa wrote:
It's really not something that is confined to the police, and, just like the police, if I was that worried about someone recording my mistakes then I shouldn't be in my profession.

I wouldn't be surprised if police weren't worried about their mistakes being recorded, but rather the context stripped or modified from a particular situation and being uploaded for the world to see, destroying your good name and even if the context later gets clarified it's too late.

I could imagine cops are probably happier wearing recording devices on themselves to be used in investigations than being recorded by a 3rd party and it uploaded on the internet Rock Bottom style...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this. There have been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where no punishment was issued out and nothing changed.

There have also been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where punishment WAS issued, the cops losing their jobs or ending up in jail themselves.

And when you say "the nation's police", remember there's 1.1 million people employed in law enforcement in the USA and about 1000 people get killed by police a year, so that means it takes roughly 1000 law enforcement persons to kill 1 civilian.

There's also around 12,000 homicides per year. So the cops are knocking off about 1 civilian for every 10-ish civilians killed by civilians.

Would you like to see the numbers of killings be reduced?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you like to see the numbers of killings be reduced?

I'd like to see all the numbers reduced. Homicides, police killings and the number of police in service, reductions on all counts would be great.... but I also think there's a bit too much sensationalism that comes in to these discussions at the expense of all the decent people who have to put up with their neighbourhoods being vandalised in riots and the huge number of decent police who get caught up in the mess.

I think the best way to improve the numbers is to improve the communities first and foremost. It seems to me the reason young black males are more likely to be shot by police is because young black males are also more likely to be the ones killing other civilians.... maybe THAT'S the big problem we should be trying to address here.

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this

I think there's some truth to that despite the fact a guy holding a stolen gun isn't my idea of a great candidate to rally a banner around.

Problem is that there is cultural expectation that is followed through. Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.

London was disrupted by opportunistic sit in protests at transport hubs last week which was dealt with kid gloves to avoid inflaming racial tensions. It was part of a larger scale protest movement which had a low turnout but was positioned to cause maximum transport disruption in order to be heard. Its one thing to protest at a street corner where people have to go around its another to choose to do on the feed road outside a major airport so that people miss their flights.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-protest-black-lives-matter-road-block-met-with-anger-after-causing-traffic-chaos-a3312891.html

The excuse, the fifth anniversary of the hooting of Mark Duggan, a known violent drug dealer who had according to police intel aquired an illegal firearm shortly prior to his shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan

As with riots in the US after police shootings this was a large scale opportunity to loot and burn shops. I am sure people were thinking of poor Mr Duggan when hey ran away from a broken shop window with stolen pair of sneakers or a game console under their arms.

The UK flatly doesn't have the same police violence against minorities issue the US does, and we don't need or deserve this. Mark Duggan could have been of any colour, he would have got the same treatment, and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over I lot of US law enforcement would be thinking 'if only' on that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this. There have been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where no punishment was issued out and nothing changed. People have been given no reason to respond rationally so we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't. If the police had raised this whole issue a year ago as a problem to be addressed and had since been going over research, testimony, and generally making a effort to improve things then the public wouldn't react this way.

Now obviously the situation is not that clear cut and there are shades of grey, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear. They brought this on themselves.

The police earned a riot where the people involved destroy the property of regular people unrelated to the shooting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Wow. What were the police supposed to do in this case? Give the man a cookie,a pat on the back and send him on his merry way? This is getting ridiculous.

Maybe that would be better than just shooting him.

We don't know the chain of circumstances so let's not prejudge it. But to go from a traffic stop of some kind to shooting someone is quite a leap.

Obviously if the police stopped the car because it had been identified as being driven by a potentially violent terrorist suspect then it puts a different light on things, but maybe they stopped it for a defective brake light.

Mmm fair enough. It will be very interesting when the bodycam footage comes out.

Here is an interesting article about problems with crime profiling using AI database software.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html?_r=2

It doesn't necessarily explain the current case, but it helps explain the background of why crime sometimes seems to cluster.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is an interesting article about problems with crime profiling using AI database software.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html?_r=2

It doesn't necessarily explain the current case, but it helps explain the background of why crime sometimes seems to cluster.

Do you mean you think that's already happening, or as a concern for the future? Because I don't think it's really the case that black communities are targeted more thus have higher reported crime, I'd say they have higher crime and thus are targeted more, if they are even targeted more. I've heard the argument that you get a greater proportion of cops in wealthy areas, making an appearance, stopping the less serious crimes and racking up fines rather than delving in to the depths of more dangerous areas. Certainly in the area I lived in while I was in PA that seemed to be the case, the University I worked at was surrounded by a rough area. So you had wealthy areas just a few streets from poor areas and the cop cars just seemed to circle the wealthy areas even though muggings and property damage seemed to always be reported in the poor areas, literally just a few hundred yards away from what seemed to be the cop's patrol area. EDIT: To be fair, the wealthy areas were mostly students from wealthy backgrounds and a few academics and staff of the University, so the cops might have just been trying to keep the college kids out of danger as they stumble home drunk every night).

The FBI stats show blacks make up 43.5% of murderers in the USA (most of which are male) but are only 12.2% of the population, that's not really a statistic that can come from over policing an area due to profiling causing a disproportionate amount of crimes reported to crimes committed.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this.

Protesters burned several stores

The police across the nation may deserve more severe scrutiny and lack of faith due to the actions of some in their ranks, but the shop owners most certainly did not deserve to have their businesses burned and looted. Full Stop.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people?

People that have already been involved in shooting someone else and brandishing stolen firearms? Very much yes!

I think a lot of the problem stems from lumping entire swathes of the population together and making assumptions. Saying "the Police deserve this!" Is just as dumb as saying "those Thugs deserve this!" There are thousands of police departments in the country made up of individual people. Most are good people doing a very tough job. Just like there are millions of good, hard working Black people out there who don't run out of there vehicle at the first sign of the police. Seeing these as separate instances and taking each story individually is the only way to try and separate the good from the bad, like with people.

 kronk wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this.

Protesters burned several stores

The police across the nation may deserve more severe scrutiny and lack of faith due to the actions of some in their ranks, but the shop owners most certainly did not deserve to have their businesses burned and looted. Full Stop.

If I was a shop owner I'd be worried. It's ain't a protest its a excuse to loot and destroy.
If you loot and a shop owner shoots you. Meh. Your own idiotic fault.

According to reports, the body cam supposedly(I haven't seen it yet) has the "victim" refusing to drop the gun and raising it to fire. It was a good shoot apparently. Shooter was also a black officer negating the whole white supremacy crap the Panthers are crying about.

Said it before, culture has to change. People need to learn to respect cops and authority. In white and better off communities' kids are taught cops are the good guys and heroes, listen to what they say. Low income communities treat cops like the villains and refuse to cooperate. Parents even teach their kids this. Its like a badge of honor to have served time and the music glorifies all these illegal acts. The people in these communities need to stop defending these criminals who are preying on their own communities. If they reported crime, actively helped the cops instead of obstructing, you would see less of this us vs them mentality. These are close knit communities, everyone knows where the crack houses are, who the dealers are, who the bangers are. But no, they circle the wagons making life difficult for the law enforcement to do their job.

Something interesting a chap on reddit linked was how segregated the pop of Milwaukee is:

Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Riots and looting are earned by police conduct.

 jmurph wrote:
Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Riots and looting are earned by police conduct.

"protests" because you need as new tv, pair of jordans or just want some free snacks...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Just like there are millions of good, hard working Black people out there who don't run out of there vehicle at the first sign of the police.

And yet those millions of "hard-working black people" have their rights violated by the police at alarmingly higher rates than other demographics, and slowly get burdened with increasing 'frivolous' citations which leads to them having their rights violated more and more. How many of these 'he had a warrant so it justified us doing everything' been for nothing more serious than an outstanding speeding/parking ticket? As soon as certain people hear 'warrant' they assume the person was a criminal dirtbag and 'deserved what they got' and they pay no mind to the widespread corruption and documented malfeasance which is found in every DOJ report after every one of these incidents.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The nation's police earned this.

Did the owners of the burnt and looted stores?

What did the "nation's police" suffer?

 jmurph wrote:
Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.

Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.

Wow, way to prove my point. Nothing to argue against when ALL are guilty for the crimes of the few.

nkelsch wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.

Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.

And yet folks vote for the same city council members, police chiefs, DAs, and mayors over and over again. Guess to take your astute analysis to the next level, ALL those people ARE BAD PEOPLE for voting for the same gak bags and the same policies over and over and over. If they are not voting for them, they know folks who are . Makes them all part of the problem.

nkelsch wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.

Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.

DOJ source saying 100% of police are bad, please.

Pretty amazing that THEY ARE ALL BAD considering the thousands of different agencies all run by different cities in different states.....

nkelsch wrote:
Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police.

Well then it shouldn't be hard for you to supply links from multiple reputable sources to back up that statement.

 CptJake wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.

Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.

And yet folks vote for the same city council members, police chiefs, DAs, and mayors over and over again. Guess to take your astute analysis to the next level, ALL those people ARE BAD PEOPLE for voting for the same gak bags and the same policies over and over and over. If they are not voting for them, they know folks who are . Makes them all part of the problem.

On a bit of a tangent, it's always bothered me that when the DOJ has to come in and take over running a municipal PD that all the govt officials in charge of it, mayor, city council, police chief, DA, etc. that were supposed to be overseeing the PD and making sure they did their job properly get to keep their jobs. Like with Baltimore, if the BPD is so inept, corrupt and racist that it has to be taken over by the DOJ and cleaned up then all the govt officials were supposed to be in charge of the PD while it was being so poorly run should also get tossed out. Those people were elected/chosen to make sure the city government was properly run and under their watch the PD went rogue so those people need to be held accountable for their failings instead of abdicating their responsibility for good governance to the DOJ.

Should the DOJ be empowered to throw elected officials out of their positions?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Should the DOJ be empowered to throw elected officials out of their positions?

Should it be empowered to interfere in State, County and Municipality LEAs at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, since the DOJ is clearly part of the problem since ALL law enforcement types are corrupt racists, maybe we ought to just disband it.

Conceivably, the DOJ is there to deal with stuff like Civil Rights era Alabama where the governance and population were perfectly fine with racially discriminatory law enforcement against a minority group. However, when you get to 2015 Baltimore, it gets more complicated as now you are dealing with a largely minority population, but also minority governance (including police officers). It is why BLM and such is off base- there is no national police force and problems must be addressed on a department by department basis. Some departments may have racial issues, others may not.

Regardless, rioting and looting only further victimizes the very communities that such "protestors" claim to represent.