America - The Official Thread

[Blitz24]

It's really sad. It's also sad that the people don't get it. Race relations have gone back to the 1960s again in terms of police treatment of non-whites.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's really sad. It's also sad that the people don't get it. Race relations have gone back to the 1960s again in terms of police treatment of non-whites.

Just saw this story; US Justice department to investigate the case under Civil Rights powers. There's talk of bodycams for US officers but this case demonstrates how pointless they might be.

EDIT: We recently read that the officer who shot Michael Brown has retired from the force.

Retired as a rich man. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.

At the base of my difficulties overall in both cases are that I believe the people should only be judged by the people. Now that two Grand Juries have spoken I feel compelled to accept their verdicts. However, any jury should also be taking legal guidance from a judge... in the Garner case I'm not sure that duty was correctly discharged.

 

[Dotini]

It's a real worry - I understand that the case is "no further action" because he already had asthma/heart complications. That seems to suggest that if you have pre-existing medical conditions and die when being heavily restrained it's your own fault.

You need to remember that, although in the US you have many rights, the right to resist arrest is not one of them. If you resist arrest, you should not expect to survive your encounter with police. The cop in question used an approved version of the choke hold, and was acting under orders and under the color of law and his training. In no way can he be held personally criminally liable, since if you did so, no policeman in the country would be able to do his job without fear of prosecution. If something must change, then it is the training, the rules, the laws, the policies of the police departments, judges and prosecutors that must be changed. The cop who killed him was merely the last link in a long chain forged of training, laws, rules and precedents. It is the "system" as a whole, not the individual officer, who must be put on trial and investigated.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you resist arrest, you should not expect to survive your encounter with police.

If you were a police force and you think that all your suspects are going to roll over "It's a fair cop, guv" style then you'd be living in cloud cuckoo land. If you've watched the Garner video and think that the actions of the officers appear proportionate (even without the knowledge of what happened to Garner afterwards) then you live in a crazy film. If you live in a place where you expect to die for resisting arrest then... well. Hard to know what to say about that kind of place.

You need some Shonas.

Warning: Bad language in the following video, a 7 min excerpt from BBC's Traffic Cops. Link.

 

[Liquid]

Stewart nails the Garner case

 

[Keef]

I'm not so sure race is still the main factor. I think police protectionism is the real problem. Police officers have become infallible - what they say goes, what they do is right, they can never do wrong, they never recieve punishment, etc. I say **** that. I lose respect for the law and the officers who are supposed to uphold it little by little every single day.

I personally think police officers should be much more vulnerable in various ways than they currently are, to the point where recruiting new officers is not an easy task. I don't really think cops should enjoy the same rights to self defense as pedestrians. Even if the defense is legitimate, I feel an example should be made of the officer every time. Even a legitimate case should result in suspension, retraining, psychological analysis, all sorts of stuff. An illegitimate killing should result in the toughest sentence possible.

 

[Dennisch]

If cases like these keep popping up I can see riots a la Los Angeles 1992 happening again.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Keef, I agree with all you say but there's a perception in the black community that they are more unlikely to be on the wrong end of bad officers' behaviour than other people. That perception of the US in general has spread across the world (in my opinion) and reflects back on the US in a cyclical fashion.

A few bad cops in one department are, I believe, generally dealt with by the decent cops who've made their way through the ranks. The difficulty occurs more in places where the whole department has either turned bad or where a bad commander has hired a majority of guys who think like him. And I say guys specifically; I can't think of a case where a white female officer has been similarly accused? I'd like to be corrected on that if possible, of course.

 

[BobK]

@Keef, I agree with all you say but there's a perception in the black community that they are more unlikely to be on the wrong end of bad officers' behaviour than other people.

They're right. And there's a reason for it. But it's Politically Incorrect to say what that reason is.

 

[Omnis]

Everything about the Garner case was handled appropriately, except for the dingus cop who put him in a chokehold and then sat on his head. Everything would have been fine if that one guy, Pantoleo, wasn't there.

 

[Liquid]

But he was, and nothing is publicly being done about that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...except for the dingus cop who put him in a chokehold and then sat on his head. Everything would have been fine if that one guy, Pantoleo, wasn't there.

I find it hard not to read "except for the cop that killed him" in there. That's blunt but it's my opinion.

 

[Keef]

@Keef, I agree with all you say but there's a perception in the black community that they are more unlikely to be on the wrong end of bad officers' behaviour than other people.

They are also hilariously more likely to actually be doing something bad in the process. There's a small but immensely productive portion of the black community which perpetuates the stereotype here in the US. Cops do target young black males disproportionately and it's because young black males give them every reason to. They don't just jaywalk either, they murder each other at an unprecedented rate.

 

[Lizard]

The UN are getting involved now it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30350702

A bit embarrassing for a country like the US to have the UN express concern over it's justice system.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They are also hilariously more likely to actually be doing something bad in the process. There's a small but immensely productive portion of the black community which perpetuates the stereotype here in the US. Cops do target young black males disproportionately and it's because young black males give them every reason to. They don't just jaywalk either, they murder each other at an unprecedented rate.

I don't know, up to 2008 a homicide was 55% likely to have been committed by somebody who was black compared to 45% for somebody who was white.

When you consider that a homicide victim is four times more likely to be black... your claim doesn't add up.

It seems more likely that the media might be more willing to paint the black community as the most prolific murderers when that can't be the case.

According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.

The homicide rate for black male victims was 31.67 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall homicide rate for male victims was 7.13 per 100,000. For white male victims, the homicide rate was 3.85 per 100,000.

 

[Ken]

The UN are getting involved now it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30350702

A bit embarrassing for a country like the US to have the UN express concern over it's justice system.

I can't say that I'm all that shocked by that. Okay, maybe a little.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can't say that I'm all that shocked by that. Okay, maybe a little.

Much as I support the UN I think the only benefit of this would be to help the US look at any problems it might have and to learn any lessons.

Anything that gives real impetus to constructive dialogue has to be a good thing, but the conclusions must be made separately from the accusation and must be made fairly.

EDIT:

Black people only kill slightly more people than white people but are more than 4 times more likely to be a victim of homicide. I'm still digesting those stats but they're very very scary in terms of what they suggest. EDIT: Working on these figures, d'oh

I'm 50/50 here, the UN should let the US sort herself out... but is that going to happen? I don't know.

 

[Ken]

learn any lessons

I wouldn't except sweeping reform. But learning a lesson would be a great start.

 

[Dotini]

Black people are probably more angered than most about robotics, outsourcing and immigration, since these factors cause unemployment among young black men. The resultant poverty and crime is probably more at the root of the current protests of both black and whites than police brutality - though that is also a very real problem.

 

[kennylmao]

EDIT:

Black people only kill slightly more people than white people but are more than 4 times more likely to be a victim of homicide. I'm still digesting those stats but they're very very scary in terms of what they suggest.

If my math doesn't fail me right now:

Black people should not be killing more than white people. As things goes, they should only be killing their proportion of the US population which, according to a quick Google search, is around 12.6%. The statistics which show 55% is more than 4 times what it should be, hence black people being 4 times more likely to be victim of homicide (since killings mostly occur within the same race for both blacks and whites).

May I ask, what is it the stats suggest which are scary?

 

[TenEightyOne]

May I ask, what is it the stats suggest which are scary?

Your logic hits my sober Saturday-morning self like a train. I'll add this to the queue of things I'm struggling to digest

As things goes, they should only be killing their proportion of the US population which, according to a quick Google search, is around 12.6%.

Okay, so that figure's actually 21.7% (on this Wiki) if we presume that mixed-race people (such as Barack Obama are considered "black").

I'm going to see if I can break those figures out more and get some murderlisation figures too. That's not because I'm sure I was correct above; I'm not... but I'm very interested to try to see a more balanced figure beyond the media hyperbole.

EDIT: Here's a load of grist for t'mill;

FBI Expanded Homicide Data (And was there really a murderer aged between 5-8, Table 3?)

Before starting to digest these (with more success than last night's tandoori) I was of the belief that young black men are unfairly targeted with a perception of being more likely to commit violent crime.

The figures suggest otherwise and while that doesn't change my view on "auto-lethal" policing by any means it demonstrates a very worrying sub-cultural trend, particularly amongst people that many countries (the US included, I think) would consider "children".

 

[kennylmao]

@TenEightyOne Did you get 21.7% by adding numbers? I couldn't find that number in the Wikipedia entry.

*does some math*

Wait wat. You did. Mixed race does not always include black, though I presume a large proportion of it may be since blacks are a significant minority group, but definitely not all. It could mean 'white + black', 'white + Asian', 'white + Latino', 'white + native Indian', 'black + Asian', 'black + Latino', 'black + native Indian', 'Asian + Latino', 'Asian + Native Indian', 'Latino + native Indian' or what other mixes there may be.

Or do you consider any mixes that include one(1) non white as black? I'm sensing some master race feeling over here... (jk )

Also, I think blacks are more prone to crime not because of their skin color (that's just ridiculous) but because of cultural and socioeconomical reasons that happen to intertwine with race. Get a black person and let him/her be raised by fairly well off, super strict Asian parents and I'm sure he/she will grow up to be a neurosurgeon, astrophysicist, etc.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne Did you get 21.7% by adding numbers..mixed race does not always include black, though I presume a large proportion of it may be since blacks are a significant minority group,

It's a tough one, America has a mixed-race president, F1 has a mixed-race champion, I have a mixed-race sister... but all of those people are "visually" (and self) identified as "black". Regardless of that they couldn't be included in literally-correct figures for people who are "black". In those wiki figures the "mix" could be anything, I guess if you extrapolate the sole-race mix then mixed-black would actually be about 3%? That gets a figure of around 15% overall for "race includes black" at a guess, so closer to your figure.

In terms of the FBI figures I posted I think they show a cultural problem outside a white/black issue, there's clearly a section of society with problems that needs some help or attention regardless of their cultural/racial identification. Trying to engage as a wider US community would help with that and would, by dint, fix some pre-conceptions that might otherwise be expected from some people.

There are about 38 million black people in the US you could meet, only 6000 of those (rough lift) are going to be murderers this year. They're safer than take-away Tandoori chicken, that's for sure.

 

[kennylmao]

I am pleased when my math doesn't fail me. *chin up/smug face*

??? But then I doubt a Chinese x Mexican would be considered black, haha

Indeed, but that section of society with problems happen to be overrepresented by black people. That is an undeniable fact. (If it is like you say, outside a white/black issue, then we would see a representation of races that is proportional to the overall population. but it isn't) We need to properly identify the problem in order to effectively solve it. But if problems are solved, what else would there be for politicians to rave about?

I personally think stereotypes should be left to the individual to break. I believe everybody is in control of their own lives and if you do not want to be part of a stereotype, don't be. (See Eminem) There is no one else to blame but yourself for your own conditions. I don't believe in social engineering and meddling by the government because someone thinks it's best for me.

You're not typing this from the potty are you?

 

[Carbonox]

There are about 38 million black people in the US you could meet, only 6000 of those (rough lift) are going to be murderers this year. They're safer than take-away Tandoori chicken, that's for sure.

Only 6000 murderers. What a relief.

 

[McLaren]

I'm not so sure race is still the main factor. I think police protectionism is the real problem. Police officers have become infallible - what they say goes, what they do is right, they can never do wrong, they never recieve punishment, etc. I say **** that. I lose respect for the law and the officers who are supposed to uphold it little by little every single day.

That's not true & you know it. Pull your head out of the media's ass & think for once.

I personally think police officers should be much more vulnerable in various ways than they currently are, to the point where recruiting new officers is not an easy task. I don't really think cops should enjoy the same rights to self defense as pedestrians. Even if the defense is legitimate, I feel an example should be made of the officer every time. Even a legitimate case should result in suspension, retraining, psychological analysis, all sorts of stuff. An illegitimate killing should result in the toughest sentence possible.

FYI, suspension & training does happen after incidents like these.

But yeah, cops deserved to get stabbed & killed before acting! Die pigs!
http://ktla.com/2014/12/06/protest-...y-armed-with-knife-at-hollywood-and-highland/

Los Angeles Police Officers responded to a call of an assault with a deadly weapon in progress around 6:45 p.m. on Friday night to the tourist-packed intersection. When officers arrived, the suspect reportedly did not back down to police officers, which is when the shooting occurred. "When [the suspect] saw the officers, he approached them, and an officer-involved shooting occurred," Detective Meghan Aguilar told ABC 7. Witnesses, according to the LA Times, said that police officers could be heard saying "He's still got a knife" before the shooting occurred.

"When they told him to get down and comply, he did not at all," Bruce Cherry told CBS 2. "When they ran up on him, he stuffed both hands inside of his pockets and that's when... the shots rang out."

Ask a man to protect & serve the community, expect him to be harmed/killed in the process or punished otherwise. You want cops as cannon fodder against a society. Stupidest thing I've read yet, and no surprise you dribbled it.

What you want basically now puts criminals into the victim category no matter what. If a cop ends up shooting a criminal, you want him punished. If a civilian shoots a criminal, well, society today can allow that man to be sued by the criminal or his family. Bravo.

 

[Keef]

But yeah, cops deserved to get stabbed & killed before acting! Die pigs!
http://ktla.com/2014/12/06/protest-...y-armed-with-knife-at-hollywood-and-highland/


Ask a man to protect & serve the community, expect him to be harmed/killed in the process or punished otherwise. You want cops as cannon fodder against a society. Stupidest thing I've read yet, and no surprise you dribbled it.

I never said anything like that. I said I don't think they should enjoy the same rights, not that they shouldn't have any at all.

The difference between police and civilians is that police consciously choose to enforce law. If I tried to walk around town and enforce law I'd probably be put in jail - I can't even dress up like a cop for fun because I could be charged with impersonation. So because cops choose to take responsibility for enforcement, I think the punishments they receive when they do something wrong should harsher than for your average citizen.

But it goes deeper than "when they do something wrong". You have to prove that first. That's where the police protectionism comes in, because it's a known phenomenon that officers and their unions support each other almost without exception. They often won't tattle on other officers or risk being shunned out of the fraternity. And because of their relationship with the law, and that of their superiors with local and state governments, it's not uncommon for them to cheat the law in ways the public never finds out about. The Cleveland incident sounds like a good example. So, in the spirit of this grand authoritarian society we live in, in order to get the point across to these organizations that messing up is unacceptable, the punishment for being found out should be dreadfully harsh. Breaking an oath of office should be akin to treason. I have a feeling such a risk would help prevent the power-hungry from taking positions of power. The last person that should be in a position of power is a person who wants to be in a position of power because the reasons they want it are obvious.

What you want basically now puts criminals into the victim category no matter what. If a cop ends up shooting a criminal, you want him punished. If a civilian shoots a criminal, well, society today can allow that man to be sued by the criminal or his family. Bravo.

If you want to know even more about my philosophy, I happen to think that the list of crimes should be much shorter, but the punishments for doing whatever is left, especially if in association with some sort of rights violation, should be much harsher. For example, I don't think drunk driving should be illegal. But I do think that if you get in a crash - a legitimate violation of another's property - and you happen to be drunk when you did it, your punishment should be much more than simply a DUI (which you would get for drunk driving) or a reckless operation misdemeanor (which you would get for the crash) but some combination thereof, probably with some jail time (because you crashed and were drunk). A neat side effect of this idea is that DUI checkpoints would no longer be allowed to exist because drunk driving wouldn't be enforceable. These checkpoints have long been an issue of contention in the US and are the subject of numerous 4th amendment violations. They're especially wasteful considering people can simply drive around them - attempting to intimidate people out of committing crime before they do it is dumb as they can simply find a way around so if you really want to punish the legitimate wrongdoers you have to wait until after they do something wrong, then hit them hard.

 

[McLaren]

I never said anything like that. I said I don't think they should enjoy the same rights, not that they shouldn't have any at all.

You don't want cops to be allowed the same rights to self defense as a civilian. Self defense is defense of one's property or well-being. So, a cop can either let himself be killed in self defense, or use force & be punished. That's cannon fodder; "combatants are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds". He's ****ed either way in name of "protect & serve".

That's a joke considering the type of weapons a civilian is allowed by the 2nd amendment, weapons the average officer will not ever be issued.

The difference between police and civilians is that police consciously choose to enforce law. If I tried to walk around town and enforce law I'd probably be put in jail - I can't even dress up like a cop for fun because I could be charged with impersonation. So because cops choose to take responsibility for enforcement, I think the punishments they receive when they do something wrong should harsher than for your average citizen.

This logic applies to anything. You can't dress up like a doctor & try to practice medicine. You can't dress up like an airline pilot & try to walk into an airport to fly 747s. You can dress up like those professions, you can not act like you do.

Dressing up as a cop is not illegal. Have some common sense for once.

But it goes deeper than "when they do something wrong". You have to prove that first. That's where the police protectionism comes in, because it's a known phenomenon that officers and their unions support each other almost without exception. They often won't tattle on other officers or risk being shunned out of the fraternity. And because of their relationship with the law, and that of their superiors with local and state governments, it's not uncommon for them to cheat the law in ways the public never finds out about. The Cleveland incident sounds like a good example. So, in the spirit of this grand authoritarian society we live in, in order to get the point across to these organizations that messing up is unacceptable, the punishment for being found out should be dreadfully harsh. Breaking an oath of office should be akin to treason. I have a feeling such a risk would help prevent the power-hungry from taking positions of power. The last person that should be in a position of power is a person who wants to be in a position of power because the reasons they want it are obvious.

All I just read was conspiracy opinions. You're right that cops sometimes do shy away from letting dirt out on other cops, but you automatically assume cops can break the laws however they want if the public never finds out. Last I checked, the public does that, too. They share the same name whether cop or civilian: criminals.

Remember, it ain't breaking the law unless you get caught.

If you want to know even more about my philosophy, I happen to think that the list of crimes should be much shorter, but the punishments for doing whatever is left, especially if in association with some sort of rights violation, should be much harsher. For example, I don't think drunk driving should be illegal. But I do think that if you get in a crash - a legitimate violation of another's property - and you happen to be drunk when you did it, your punishment should be much more than simply a DUI (which you would get for drunk driving) or a reckless operation misdemeanor (which you would get for the crash) but some combination thereof, probably with some jail time (because you crashed and were drunk).

You act like it's a slap on the wrist when it's not. You clearly have no idea of the financial ramifications of having a DUI/DWI on your record. In Tx.

• A fine of up to $2,000
• Three days to 180 days in jail
• Loss of driver license up to a year
• Annual fee of $1,000 or $2,000 for three years to retain driver license

That's a first offense & just being stopped. If I had a DUI/DWI charge on my record, I'd be fired from my job & likely would never get a job that ever centers around driving again.

A neat side effect of this idea is that DUI checkpoints would no longer be allowed to exist because drunk driving wouldn't be enforceable. These checkpoints have long been an issue of contention in the US and are the subject of numerous 4th amendment violations. They're especially wasteful considering people can simply drive around them - attempting to intimidate people out of committing crime before they do it is dumb as they can simply find a way around so if you really want to punish the legitimate wrongdoers you have to wait until after they do something wrong, then hit them hard.

Drunk driving should be legal so you don't have to deal with a cop taking 5 minutes out of your day to deal with a DUI checkpoint you likely never encounter 360 other days of the year.

I don't want to know more about your philosophy. I read enough stupid things on the web as it is.

 

[Dennisch]

For example, I don't think drunk driving should be illegal.

You're seriously dropping the ball here.

These rules were invented for a reason. Road safety. Suck it up that they want to test your breath. Not a single part of your privacy is invaded.

 

[Northstar]

I don't think drunk driving should be illegal. But I do think that if you get in a crash - a legitimate violation of another's property - and you happen to be drunk when you did it, your punishment should be much more than simply a DUI (which you would get for drunk driving) or a reckless operation misdemeanor (which you would get for the crash) but some combination thereof, probably with some jail time (because you crashed and were drunk). .

I'm sure those who lost loved ones to drunk drivers wouldn't care if the person who killed them was more severely punished as jail time can't bring back the dead.

You act like it's a slap on the wrist when it's not. You clearly have no idea of the financial ramifications of having a DUI/DWI on your record. In Tx.

• A fine of up to $2,000
• Three days to 180 days in jail
• Loss of driver license up to a year
• Annual fee of $1,000 or $2,000 for three years to retain driver license

The second offense (in Minnesota) is when it gets real fun, you get to take a breathalyzer every time you start the car (and you have to pay for it, which is not cheap). After the third one you get "whiskey plates" and cops can pull you over for a sobriety test for pretty much any reason.

Can you tell I come from a family of alcoholics?