The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

[ScottPuss20]

"For wearing the badge they're the chosen whites"

 

[Keef]

Cops can be victims and should have the same right to justice as anyone else.

They did have the same right. They were tried and jury chose to acquit. The jury must have believed that because the police wronged themselves then ultimately nobody of consequence was effected and it wasn't worth convicting. The cops lost their own game.

Edit: And yes I absolutely view on-duty cops as different from civilians. Cops are the law. Civilians must obey the law. On-duty cops should be held to an insurmountably high standard of perfection and should not enjoy the luxuries of rights as thoroughly as civilians should. This is a very serious moral conundrum in my opinion - they are the law, they are morality, they should follow it to the letter, and any deviation should have severe punishment. They aren't the same as us. Blue lives don't exist. The divide isn't some social construct that can be unlearned, it's a moral construct.

If you argue that they are the same as us then I'd argue why I'm not allowed to carry a baton, taser, and gun wherever I please, and use them on people I don't like with legal protection of a massive union.

They aren't the same as us.

 

[Spacegoat]

"For wearing the badge they're the chosen whites"

Crazy how that song was recorded, what, thirty years ago? And is still as relevant as it ever was.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't think believing SCAB rather than ACAB is bootlicking on the level that excusing the crimes of bad cops is. Even RATM use the word "some". Luther Hall was a victim of police brutality and to cheer that brutality on just because he happened to be wearing a badge doesn't help the fight against it.

 

[Imari]

They did have the same right. They were tried and jury chose to acquit. The jury must have believed that because the police wronged themselves then ultimately nobody of consequence was effected and it wasn't worth convicting. The cops lost their own game.

That sort of relies on the idea that a trial is something that by definition provides justice. The existence of qualified immunity alone demonstrates that isn't so, let alone the huge power that prosecutors have to choose not to pursue charges.

Writing off cop on cop violence a "nobody of consequence was effected" is awful. Luther Hall is a person. He's not a nobody, and he deserves justice just as much as anyone else in the country. That you think that a cop that was savagely beaten is "nobody of consequence" shows that you're just as biased as unit_one, just probably in the opposite direction.

Try finding a viewpoint where everyone gets justice and nobody is dismissed for who they are, what colour their skin is, what they've done in the past or what their job is.

Edit: And yes I absolutely view on-duty cops as different from civilians. Cops are the law. Civilians must obey the law. On-duty cops should be held to an insurmountably high standard of perfection and should not enjoy the luxuries of rights as thoroughly as civilians should. This is a very serious moral conundrum in my opinion - they are the law, they are morality, they should follow it to the letter, and any deviation should have severe punishment. They aren't the same as us. Blue lives don't exist. The divide isn't some social construct that can be unlearned, it's a moral construct.

If you argue that they are the same as us then I'd argue why I'm not allowed to carry a baton, taser, and gun wherever I please, and use them on people I don't like with legal protection of a massive union.

They aren't the same as us.

In terms of committing crimes, perhaps. I can see an argument that it's desirable that someone that enforces the law is required to behave in a way in which there can be absolutely no doubt that they're not abusing their power. The military tends to do this and I think that it's generally a good idea for people who wield more power, either physically or otherwise, to be held to a higher level of responsibility for their actions. In broad terms, Uncle Ben is absolutely right.

I mean, that's clearly not how it works now which is why we're having this discussion. They're different to the rest of us but they're held to a significantly lower standard than a normal civilian, but for the sake of talking about a more ideal society then sure.

In terms of having crimes committed against them, why would they not be the same? If someone is beaten so severely that it requires surgery, why would it matter whether the victim was a cop or not? In the specific case we were talking about the victim was undercover, and so wasn't functionally different from a civilian in terms of what they were carrying. Why is it just that his attackers should not be accountable? The city paid out $5 million to the victim, so clearly they recognise that something went on, but somehow we're still at a stage where individuals are not being held responsible for their actions.

I don't buy that it's OK for perpetrators to get off just because the victim was a cop, that's not functionally any different to them getting off because he was a black man with a prior history and some drugs in his system. It only seems different to you because you're okay with seeing a cop get stomped into the ground.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you argue that they are the same as us then I'd argue why I'm not allowed to carry a baton, taser, and gun wherever I please, and use them on people I don't like with legal protection of a massive union.

The simplistic opposing argument would be that 'they' are not like 'us'. No society should ever be in that position.

A longer answer is that some members of the public train in law and the projection of society's force on those that don't uphold the commonly-agreed values. It may be that those trained members of the public are judged more lightly when they transgress certain rules, e.g. speeding on a motorway to reach an accident. Those members of the public remain members of the public and should have their equipment and protections removed if they transgress the law in a way that was not essential to protect person or property. Then they can get a job in a supermarket just like everybody else has to think about at some time in their lives.

 

[TexRex]

I don't think believing SCAB rather than ACAB is bootlicking on the level that excusing the crimes of bad cops is. Even RATM use the word "some". Luther Hall was a victim of police brutality and to cheer that brutality on just because he happened to be wearing a badge doesn't help the fight against it.

I actually like "SCAB" here because of the implication, deliberate or not, that healing needs to be done.

That said, I don't really like what it's an abbreviation for. Sure it's accurate, but it doesn't give enough information and comes off as, deliberate or not, inflammatory. I prefer the notion that all cops are people, because they are. Contrary to what has been said here recently, they are exactly like us. They just need to be held to the same standards as us.

I'm sure people will disagree, but I don't even think law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard. They're doing a job. That job happens to be--ostensibly--protecting rights by enforcing the law. If they don't do that, they need to seek alternative employment, either voluntarily or because they've been forced out. They also need to be held equally accountable for their actions when they violate the rights of those they're expected to protect.

 

[UKMikey]

I actually like "SCAB" here because of the implication, deliberate or not, that healing needs to be done.

Funnily enough it's also a longstanding term of abuse from militants towards people who take a less hardline position, particularly strikebreakers.

I'm sure people will disagree, but I don't even think law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard. They're doing a job. That job happens to be--ostensibly--protecting rights by enforcing the law. If they don't do that, they need to seek alternative employment, either voluntarily or because they've been forced out. They also need to be held equally accountable for their actions when they violate the rights of those they're expected to protect.

I'd like to see them held to the same standards as anyone else who kills or injures a member of the public while in the course of doing their job and subject to the same punishments and civil action that other people would be. I can understand how those that get away with doing so might be considered worthy of attracting a derogatory epithet or two, though.

 

[ScottPuss20]

They also need to be held equally accountable for their actions when they violate the rights of those they're expected to protect.

Yep, the people who hold forces shouldn't burn crosses.

 

[UKMikey]

Yep, the people who hold forces shouldn't burn crosses.

Read the lyrics again. It's only some of them who do that. The ones who do should be held accountable though. And the ones in office too.

 

[TexRex]

Read the lyrics again. It's only some of them who do that. The ones who do should be held accountable though. And the ones in office too.

I appreciate the sentiment here, but I'm compelled to add that the degree to which those who burn crosses are held accountable ought to be well short of the degree to which those who kill the people they're expected to protect are. Disagree with the act as I may (and do, really), it's still just expression unless subject to other laws such as property damage or endangerment.

 

[Scaff]

To say that this weeks testimony has been damming would be a massive understatement.

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-new...EMz8F638e75m74CmQJO1fM4A4y_oUrbmU0JyZ2o71YcEY

 

[Imari]

To say that this weeks testimony has been damming would be a massive understatement.

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/derek-chauvin-trial-04-08-21/h_88c324b8657e17aacac5a4131f4db180?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2021-04-08T16:43:07&utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNN&fbclid=IwAR3k5TraRBk16WEMz8F638e75m74CmQJO1fM4A4y_oUrbmU0JyZ2o71YcEY

I don't see how there's any way that they don't conclude that Chauvin killed Floyd.

I still worry that there's going to be some BS technicality that means he walks.

 

[TexRex]

Pro-Cop PAC Tried To Fundraise By Blaming George Floyd For His Own Death

A political action committee working to elect pro-police candidates to state and local office apologized last week for sending a fundraising email that blamed George Floyd for his own death. The Protect Our Police PAC formed in Philadelphia last June after nationwide protests against police brutality with the goal of ousting Larry Krasner, the city’s reformist district attorney. In the nine months since its inception, the group has backed candidates across at least 15 states. This is not the first time the committee has come under criticism for distributing racist materials.

“Our founding fathers knew the importance of a fair justice system, but unhinged radical cop haters are taking every opportunity to pervert the law to advance their agenda. That’s exactly what’s happening in Minnesota to officer Derek Chauvin,” read the April 1 email. “Let’s get one thing clear: George Floyd tested positive for COVID-19 and was high on a lethal dose of fentanyl when he died May 25th, 2020… but the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know that!” Sent from the organizationwide POP PAC account, the email was signed by President/Treasurer Nick Gerace, a former Philadelphia police officer.

In a statement on Friday, Gerace blamed the message on a marketing firm, saying that the email did not reflect his values or those of the PAC and that the group had since terminated its relationship with the firm. The statement claimed that the PAC had hired the marketing team several months before, but it did not name the firm, nor did it address why it had apparently not shown its client the content for approval before sending it out. Gerace did not answer questions from The Intercept about whether anyone at POP PAC had reviewed the contents before distribution, whether the PAC had returned contributions it received through the email’s donation links, or whether the PAC could name the marketing firm.

Krasner, up for reelection this year, is one of a growing number of prosecutors facing backlash from local and national police forces and politicians for using decarceral approaches to prosecution. When several former Philadelphia police officers started POP PAC in June, their stated goal was to help “recruit and elect candidates that will never turn their backs on our Police Officers and other first responders on the front line.”

The PAC got its start with an early investment of $10,000 from the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #5, which represents the Philadelphia Police Department and is among Krasner’s strongest critics. The police union is backing Krasner’s opponent, former homicide prosecutor Carlos Vega, and POP PAC had been expected to follow suit. But after last week’s email, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Vega has said he doesn’t want the group’s backing.

Vega is still campaigning with the local FOP, which gave another $70,000 to POP PAC between January and March of this year. One of the PAC’s most prominent supporters is Republican Timothy Mellon, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune and a top donor to former President Donald Trump. Mellon, who once called federal programs like the Affordable Care Act and food stamps “slavery redux,” has provided POP PAC with more than two-thirds of its funds.

Asked about accepting support from FOP while distancing his campaign from POP PAC, Vega told The Intercept that he would hold the FOP accountable, which he sees as a top voter concern.

POP PAC has also faced criticism for failing to file its campaign finance disclosures on time. It raised just over $730,000 in 2020 “from thousands of donors from all 50 states,” according to its website. The group is a state PAC registered in Pennsylvania, not a federal PAC, and as such is required to follow state and local reporting requirements wherever it operates. In Georgia, for example, the registered affiliated POP GA PAC filed its 2020 campaign disclosures in February 2021, four months after the October deadline. In Pennsylvania, POP PAC filed two of its 2020 campaign disclosures in February 2021, months after the October and December deadlines. The first state and local filing deadlines for 2021 in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia were on Tuesday; the group did not meet them.

LAST THURSDAY’S EMAIL lamented “months of violent looting and riots that caused over a billion dollars in damages, hundreds of small business closures, dozens of untimely deaths, and millions of dollars profited from left-wing organizations like Black Lives Matter.” Now, it went on, “Chauvin is facing trial for a murder he did not commit — leftist radicals want to make an example out of an innocent man that followed the protocol he learned in his training. They want to ruin his life for political gain.”

The next day, after the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the email’s contents, Gerace condemned Chauvin’s actions, saying they “were examples of bad policing and poor training that directly caused George Floyd’s death, in my opinion.” The email’s “messaging and innuendo” were “not in line with our mission and I vehemently denounce it,” he continued. “We can do better. We will do better. We must do better.”

Gerace’s comments reflect the significant pressure law enforcement groups are feeling as public opinion on policing and patterns of brutality has shifted since Chauvin killed Floyd last year. Gerace claims the case touched on one of the main motivations for starting the PAC. “Not all cops are bad or bastards,” his statement read. “No one hates a dirty cop more than a good cop.”

Asked to comment further, Gerace said he had been on record numerous times in the last year “saying the opposite of what is in this email. I don’t agree with its contents at all.”

Other fundraising emails sent from the PAC this year call Black Lives Matter an “anti-cop operation” with a “twisted ideology”; claim “blood is on [the] hands” of the “defund the police movement” for endangering police and everyday citizens; and decry the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a police reform bill that the House passed in March, as “something that should scare us all.”

Last year, the group’s Georgia affiliate faced similar backlash over campaign billboards and literature with racist and anti-Semitic messaging during the district attorney’s race in Georgia’s Chatham County.

One mailer pictured Shalena Cook Jones, a Black woman and the Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent Meg Heap, holding up a sideways peace sign next to George Soros. The mailer read: “Billionaire liberal George Soros has funded unqualified district attorneys in cities across America in an effort to buy our criminal justice system.” The PAC paid for billboards picturing Cook Jones making the same gesture, which some local observers, including academics and media outlets, thought was designed to look like a gang symbol. The group made an independent expenditure to support Heap, who said the billboards showed “distasteful content,” and the PAC later took them down. In a statement last October, the PAC said criticisms of the ads as racist and anti-Semitic were “false accusations meant to discredit and distract.” POP PAC spent just over $50,000 on the Georgia race, but Jones, backed by the Soros-funded Justice & Public Safety PAC, defeated the incumbent.

Despite the Philadelphia’s police union’s support for Vega, Krasner’s opponent, Gerace said the PAC has never and would not seek to back Vega directly. “POP PAC has never sought to endorse him because our effort has been laser-focused on holding DA Krasner accountable for his dangerous policies and deadly consequences,” Gerace told The Intercept. “We have not and will not endorse or directly support his campaign.”

According to Sergio Cea, an organizer with Reclaim Philadelphia, which is backing Krasner, the sentiments in the fundraising email are typical of police forces in the Philadelphia area. “This is like a pattern of what police do in Philadelphia, fundraise off of the abuse in our community,” Cea said. He noted that last year, the local police union sold T-shirts with the name of an officer who had abused protesters with a baton over the summer.

“It’s one thing if you’re saying this stuff to police officers,” said Cea. “But if you’re talking to everyday Philadelphians and voters, many of them who have been brutalized by the police department in Philadelphia, these kinds of news stories lead them to say, ‘You know what, no matter what I’m gonna back Krasner.’”

 

[Scaff]

I still worry that there's going to be some BS technicality that means he walks.

And if he does people will then be horrified if it leads to riots!

 

[Imari]

And if he does people will then be horrified if it leads to riots!

Yeah. I mean, when you encourage oppression and remove all viable means for the populace to seek justice or alter the systems on a reasonable time frame what else are they supposed to do other than riot? Seems totally in line with the intent of the American founding values and specifically the 2nd amendment. Weapons are important for defense against oppressive governments, even if they're your own.

Personally, I think that this points to the main problem with dictatorships and other similar forms of government. They're completely capable of ruling well and justly, in which case there's no problem. But when things start going wrong, there's no non-violent method of attempting to right the ship. It's assassinations and violent coups or nothing. Democracy is supposed to avoid that by providing non-violent methods of adapting government to the changing will of the people, but when those in power push back too hard against that it sort of breaks the system.

Which I guess lends legitimacy to the discussion around just how democratic is the government in the US at the moment. Clearly it's at least partly democratic, but it sure seems like there's a whole group of people who are largely outside of the democratic system of checks and balances.

And to be clear that I'm not just throwing rocks from my glass house, Australia has some of these problems too. Police brutality, particularly against First Nations people, is an established issue that doesn't look like getting solved any time soon. It just doesn't seem to be quite on the same scale as the US, for reasons that are probably fairly obvious. Our main one at the moment is stopping politicians raping people on the job, which... I mean... for 🤬's sake, Australia.

 

[Scaff]

It just doesn't stop...

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/202...1nocgTO91Ipqk3fCt6_4yZxPWE8XM2601KYSWKq3qekaI

...the officers were told that he is deaf, autistic, has intellectual disabilities and unable to respond to verbal commands and cues like other adults. Yet within minutes of arriving they had slammed him to the floor, pinned him down and shot him in the back, not on the street, but in his own home.

 

[ShiftingGears]

And to be clear that I'm not just throwing rocks from my glass house, Australia has some of these problems too. Police brutality, particularly against First Nations people, is an established issue that doesn't look like getting solved any time soon. It just doesn't seem to be quite on the same scale as the US, for reasons that are probably fairly obvious.

Is it an established issue though? Where is the evidence of police brutality in Australia?

 

[Scaff]

Is it an established issue though? Where is the evidence of police brutality in Australia?

A piece using cited peer reviewed sources for you

https://www.arc.unsw.edu.au/blitz/r...police-brutality-and-what-you-can-do-about-it

 

[ShiftingGears]

A piece using cited peer reviewed sources for you

https://www.arc.unsw.edu.au/blitz/r...police-brutality-and-what-you-can-do-about-it

That article is frankly nonsense. But I will break it down into the points it's trying to make.

Death of David Dungay In Custody

If you want to read about the death of Dungay, read the coroner's report. The cause of death is stated as inadequate medical attention exascerbated by inadequate training and a difficult and uncooperative prisoner.

https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/coronerscourt/documents/findings/2019/DUNGAY David - Findings - v2.pdf

Coronial Inquests are held in Australia every time someone dies in custody - the coroner is also completely independent of the police, so it's not the police investigating themselves. I would suggest you read the report if you are interested in the particulars of that case.

Indigenous Deaths In Custody

Now that aside, the article points to 400+ indigenous deaths in custody, and implies (just as the media did at the time) that these deaths are all due to interactions with police or corrections officers.

In reality, almost none of them do. The bulk of any death in custody in Australia, is by suicide or health issues, and indigenous people in custody die at a marginally lower rate than non-indigenous, and have done so for 30 years.

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/defaul...stody_-_25_years_since_the_rciadic_210219.pdf

Police Officers Charged With Murder

Even if a police officer shoots a suspect who is stabbing them, they are charged with murder.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-02/zachary-rolfe-committal-shown-video-kumanjayi-walker/12620732

That's seriously the standard police are held to in Australia. To act like being charged with murder makes them guilty, is incorrect. Just as it is for anyone else.

The fact that police are actually charged, is evidence that there are checks and balances.

Claims of Dysfunctional and Lawless Indigenous Communities

It's unsavoury, but it's true. Indigenous people are significantly overrepresented as both perpetrators of, and victims of violence. Indigenous women are 30-80 times more likely to experience violence than non-indigenous. Some airstrips near indigenous communities switched to Opal Fuel so that adults and children couldn't sniff it to get high.

Some of these communities, are seriously broken. Just because someone has a degree, does not preclude them from sticking their head in the sand.

https://theconversation.com/factche...ely-than-average-to-experience-violence-61809

https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/42299e49-7bef-42db-90ea-0f600004a26c/fvaatsip-c02.pdf.aspx

https://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2005/11/24/1831506.htm



That's why indigenous people are overrepresented in custody - because they are overrepresented in crimes committed. And that is an end result of the problems that happen, in many instances, well before their first interaction with police.

Blaming this on police is easy, but it doesn't stand up to the evidence.

 

[Scaff]

That article is frankly nonsense. But I will break it down into the points it's trying to make.

Death of David Dungay In Custody

If you want to read about the death of Dungay, read the coroner's report. The cause of death is stated as inadequate medical attention exascerbated by inadequate training and a difficult and uncooperative prisoner.

https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/coronerscourt/documents/findings/2019/DUNGAY David - Findings - v2.pdf

Coronial Inquests are held in Australia every time someone dies in custody - the coroner is also completely independent of the police, so it's not the police investigating themselves. I would suggest you read the report if you are interested in the particulars of that case.

So the officers involved and the structure they work within was, in a significant part, responsible. Who was held accountable for that and what charges did they face and what was the outcome?

Nor was being 'difficult and uncooperative' mentioned at all in the cause of death.

"Manner of Death:
David died whilst being restrained in the prone position by Corrective Services New South Wales officers. David’s long-standing poorly controlled type I diabetes, hyperglycaemia, prescription of antipsychotic medication with a propensity to prolong the QT interval, elevated body mass index, likely hypoxaemia caused by prone restraint, and extreme stress and agitation as a result of the use of force and restraint were all contributory factors to David’s death."

He may have been difficult and uncooperative, but that wasn't a factor in what killed him (and that's your source).

Indigenous Deaths In Custody

Now that aside, the article points to 400+ indigenous deaths in custody, and implies (just as the media did at the time) that these deaths are all due to interactions with police or corrections officers.

In reality, almost none of them do. The bulk of any death in custody in Australia, is by suicide or health issues, and indigenous people in custody die at a marginally lower rate than non-indigenous, and have done so for 30 years.

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/defaul...stody_-_25_years_since_the_rciadic_210219.pdf

No it doesn't imply that they are all the fault of the police at all, it implies that it would be remarkable strange that none of them were the fault of the police. Nor do death from illness or suicide preclude racism, as a parallel black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in childbirth, due to the the difference in the way they are treated and how seriously they are taken when raising issues. Increased mortality rates most certainly can have an underlying racist cause even if you don't physically kill someone.

It's after all not difficult to find examples in Australia either.

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

Police Officers Charged With Murder

Even if a police officer shoots a suspect who is stabbing them, they are charged with murder.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-02/zachary-rolfe-committal-shown-video-kumanjayi-walker/12620732

That's seriously the standard police are held to in Australia. To act like being charged with murder makes them guilty, is incorrect. Just as it is for anyone else.

The fact that police are actually charged, is evidence that there are checks and balances.

Being charged and being held accountable are utterly different things, the police in the US get charged, very rarely are they held accountable, the police in the UK get charged, very rarely are they held accountable. Spot a trend?

Claims of Dysfunctional and Lawless Indigenous Communities

It's unsavoury, but it's true. Indigenous people are significantly overrepresented as both perpetrators of, and victims of violence. Indigenous women are 30-80 times more likely to experience violence than non-indigenous. Some airstrips near indigenous communities switched to Opal Fuel so that adults and children couldn't sniff it to get high.

Some of these communities, are seriously broken. Just because someone has a degree, does not preclude them from sticking their head in the sand.

https://theconversation.com/factche...ely-than-average-to-experience-violence-61809

https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/42299e49-7bef-42db-90ea-0f600004a26c/fvaatsip-c02.pdf.aspx

https://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2005/11/24/1831506.htm



That's why indigenous people are overrepresented in custody - because they are overrepresented in crimes committed. And that is an end result of the problems that happen, in many instances, well before their first interaction with police.

Blaming this on police is easy, but it doesn't stand up to the evidence.

They are seriously broken, why is that again? Are you suggesting that indigenous people are simply more predisposed to this lifestyle?

 

[ShiftingGears]

So the officers involved and the structure they work within was, in a significant part, responsible. Who was held accountable for that and what charges did they face and what was the outcome?

No-one was charged, it was a failure of the system. Maybe it would make people feel better, but it solves nothing. And it also isn't police brutality.

No it doesn't imply that they are all the fault of the police at all, it implies that it would be remarkable strange that none of them were the fault of the police.

This was a tactic of a lot of the media, particularly The Guardian, last year. They can't outright claim that 400 deaths in custody involve the direct interactions with police - as that would be blatantly false. However they can, and do, just present two examples side by side so the reader makes that presumption. It's dishonest.

Coroners reports are available in several, if not all, Australian states and territories to give that transparency.

Nor do death from illness or suicide preclude racism ,as a parallel black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in childbirth, due to the the difference in the way they are treated and how seriously they are taken when raising issues. Increased mortality rates most certainly can have an underlying racist cause even if you don't physically kill someone.

Yes, but as stated, indigenous people in custody die at a lower rate as non-indigenous. So it's not applicable here. I would support an investigation if there was a serious discrepancy, but there isn't.

It's after all not difficult to find examples in Australia either.

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

I'm not condoning the actions of the police here.

Being charged and being held accountable are utterly different things, the police in the US get charged, very rarely are they held accountable, the police in the UK get charged, very rarely are they held accountable. Spot a trend?

It depends on what you mean by "held accountable". I'm not going to assume police are guilty because they are police. It depends what the evidence is, and frankly, I am not going to assume other countries problems are Australia's by default. The cultures and systems in place are different, and frankly I think it's foolish to compare, because the Anglosphere isn't some interchangeable monoculture.

They are seriously broken, why is that again?

You just linked an article which you touted as "peer reviewed", the comment for which was saying that indigenous communities in fact weren't dysfunctional. To be clear, are you now disagreeing with this "peer reviewed" statement?

Are you suggesting that indigenous people are simply more predisposed to this lifestyle?

Nope. I am saying police brutality isn't the issue today.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No it doesn't imply that they are all the fault of the police at all, it implies that it would be remarkable strange that none of them were the fault of the police. Nor do death from illness or suicide preclude racism, as a parallel black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in childbirth, due to the the difference in the way they are treated and how seriously they are taken when raising issues.

Is there a source for this or is it in one of the reports?

I found this but it's seemingly saying that it could be a cause rather than the cause.

 

[TJ13]

While this trial is going on.
Last night.
10 miles away.
In Brooklyn Center.
Police shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop.

In a statement, Brooklyn Center police said officers pulled over a man for a traffic violation just before 2 p.m., and found he had an outstanding arrest warrant.
As police tried to arrest him, he got back in the car. One officer shot the man, who was not identified in the statement. The man drove several blocks before striking another vehicle and dying at the scene.
Police say both officers' body cameras were recording during the incident. The state's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said it was investigating the shooting.

https://www.aol.com/news/police-vehicles-vandalized-man-shot-020456802-082654452.html

200 protesters rioted through the night.

While he did have warrants and actually tried to use force.

 

[Scaff]

No-one was charged, it was a failure of the system. Maybe it would make people feel better, but it solves nothing. And it also isn't police brutality.

Being pined down until you die isn't brutal? Being ignored and the utterly false 'if you're talking you're breathing' line used repeatedly isn't brutal? Do you think forcibly sedating a person who is stating they can't breath isn't brutal (and also stupidly dangerous)?

We clearly have very, very different ideas of what brutality means.

That aside, was anyone held accountable at all, any job loses, oh wait we are unlikely to know as the names of all involved were never made a part of the public record.

This was a tactic of a lot of the media, particularly The Guardian, last year. They can't outright claim that 400 deaths in custody involve the direct interactions with police - as that would be blatantly false. However they can, and do, just present two examples side by side so the reader makes that presumption. It's dishonest.

Coroners reports are available in several, if not all, Australian states and territories to give that transparency.

You made that presumption, I made a different one.

Yes, but as stated, indigenous people in custody die at a lower rate as non-indigenous. So it's not applicable here. I would support an investigation if there was a serious discrepancy, but there isn't.

You utterly missed the point.

I'm not condoning the actions of the police here.

So what accountability occurred here?

Let's take a look:

"Police and medical staff consistently testified they thought Dhu had been faking her illness;[3] Burgess said she thought Dhu had pretended to faint to get quicker treatment.[22] The inquest heard that 11 police officers had received disciplinary notices for failing to follow correct procedure and that an internal police investigation found four of them had "engaged in unprofessional conduct" and their handling of the situation was "without any sense of urgency ... [they] failed to comprehend and respond to the seriousness of the situation".[3] Burgess received the severest disciplinary action of the eleven; a warning notice from the assistant commissioner for the "lack of urgency" she displayed after Dhu hit her head on the concrete.[1] Three other officers were given written warnings and seven received verbal warnings. None of the warnings resulted in immediate disciplinary action; they only affected the officers' chance of promotion.[33] Most of the police officers told the inquest that at the time they did not understand the notices or the reasons they had been given them. Two of the officers who received warnings had since been promoted; Sgt. Bond had quit the police force, telling the inquest he had done so for "family reasons".[3] When asked if he treated Dhu inhumanely, Bond responded, "I wouldn't say inhumane. I would say unprofessional."[3] A medical expert testified that if Dhu's condition had been correctly diagnosed on her second visit to hospital, her life could have been saved.[3] Sandra Thompson, Professor of Rural Health at the University of Western Australia, told the inquest that if Dhu had been a white middle-class person, "there would have been much more effort made to understand what was going on with that person's pain. So that's what institutional racism represents."[3] Senior medical officer Ganesan Sakarapani said the Hedland Health Campus did not have a culture of institutionalised racism and rejected a suggestion that if Dhu had been white, she would have been treated differently.[34]"

So written warnings, that's what accountability looks like. Do you think that's proportionate? Do you think that if the repercussions were more serious officers would treat people with more care and repeats of the situation possibly avoided?

It depends on what you mean by "held accountable". I'm not going to assume police are guilty because they are police. It depends what the evidence is, and frankly, I am not going to assume other countries problems are Australia's by default. The cultures and systems in place are different, and frankly I think it's foolish to compare, because the Anglosphere isn't some interchangeable monoculture.

I'm not assuming the police are guilty because they are the police.

You just linked an article which you touted as "peer reviewed", the comment for which was saying that indigenous communities in fact weren't dysfunctional. To be clear, are you now disagreeing with this "peer reviewed" statement?

Not what I did at all, and you've not actually answered my question at all.

Nope. I am saying police brutality isn't the issue today.

And I disagree.

Is there a source for this or is it in one of the reports?

I found this but it's seemingly saying that it could be a cause rather than the cause.

It's going to have many causes, but even factors such as higher possibility of pre-eclampsia don't account for the difference

While this trial is going on.
Last night.
10 miles away.
In Brooklyn Center.
Police shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop.

https://www.aol.com/news/police-vehicles-vandalized-man-shot-020456802-082654452.html

200 protesters rioted through the night.

While he did have warrants and actually tried to use force.

At this point I'm going to want to see far more detail on this (and the body cam footage), as I'm no longer that inclined to take a story from the police as straight up honest any longer.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Being pined down until you die isn't brutal? Being ignored and the utterly false 'if you're talking you're breathing' line used repeatedly isn't brutal? Do you think forcibly sedating a person who is stating they can't breath isn't brutal (and also stupidly dangerous)?

No I don't, it was done because they were attempting to effectively self harm.

We clearly have very, very different ideas of what brutality means.

That aside, was anyone held accountable at all, any job loses, oh wait we are unlikely to know as the names of all involved were never made a part of the public record.

Why should they be?

You made that presumption, I made a different one.

That it's strange that none of them are accountable? I don't think that's necessarily the case. People can pull up all the cases they think officers should be charged and convicted.

You utterly missed the point.

So what was the point?

So what accountability occurred here?

Let's take a look:

"Police and medical staff consistently testified they thought Dhu had been faking her illness;[3] Burgess said she thought Dhu had pretended to faint to get quicker treatment.[22] The inquest heard that 11 police officers had received disciplinary notices for failing to follow correct procedure and that an internal police investigation found four of them had "engaged in unprofessional conduct" and their handling of the situation was "without any sense of urgency ... [they] failed to comprehend and respond to the seriousness of the situation".[3] Burgess received the severest disciplinary action of the eleven; a warning notice from the assistant commissioner for the "lack of urgency" she displayed after Dhu hit her head on the concrete.[1] Three other officers were given written warnings and seven received verbal warnings. None of the warnings resulted in immediate disciplinary action; they only affected the officers' chance of promotion.[33] Most of the police officers told the inquest that at the time they did not understand the notices or the reasons they had been given them. Two of the officers who received warnings had since been promoted; Sgt. Bond had quit the police force, telling the inquest he had done so for "family reasons".[3] When asked if he treated Dhu inhumanely, Bond responded, "I wouldn't say inhumane. I would say unprofessional."[3] A medical expert testified that if Dhu's condition had been correctly diagnosed on her second visit to hospital, her life could have been saved.[3] Sandra Thompson, Professor of Rural Health at the University of Western Australia, told the inquest that if Dhu had been a white middle-class person, "there would have been much more effort made to understand what was going on with that person's pain. So that's what institutional racism represents."[3] Senior medical officer Ganesan Sakarapani said the Hedland Health Campus did not have a culture of institutionalised racism and rejected a suggestion that if Dhu had been white, she would have been treated differently.[34]"

So written warnings, that's what accountability looks like. Do you think that's proportionate? Do you think that if the repercussions were more serious officers would treat people with more care and repeats of the situation possibly avoided?

Maybe, and maybe not.

I'm not assuming the police are guilty because they are the police.

I didn't say you were.

Not what I did at all, and you've not actually answered my question at all.

So what was peer reviewed in the article, or what did you do?

To answer your question, substance abuse, and sexual and family violence (often referred to as intergenerational trauma from colonisation), clan culture. It's not any one thing, but frankly blaming colonisation (the answer you were looking for) does not excuse abusing your own family. Nor does it fix what is happening today.

And I disagree.

Yes, but the evidence does not support that.

 

[Scaff]

No I don't, it was done because they were attempting to effectively self harm.

The body-cam footage doesn't show that at all, self-harms quite tricky when you have a load of people in riot gear on top of you.

Why should they be?

You don't believe that if your actions or deliberate inactions cause the death of another person you should be held accountable?

That it's strange that none of them are accountable? I don't think that's necessarily the case. People can pull up all the cases they think officers should be charged and convicted.

So the police and corrections system in Australia is perfect in that regard?

So what was the point?

Not sure how you missed it, give you quoted it, but here we go again.

"Nor do death from illness or suicide preclude racism ,as a parallel black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in childbirth, due to the the difference in the way they are treated and how seriously they are taken when raising issues. Increased mortality rates most certainly can have an underlying racist cause even if you don't physically kill someone."

Maybe, and maybe not.

And that's an answer to which question?

I didn't say you were.

I'm simply clarify a point you raised, if the inference wasn't that its a difference between out views then why raise it at all?

So what was peer reviewed in the article?

To answer your question, substance abuse, and sexual and family violence (often referred to as intergenerational trauma from colonisation), clan culture. It's not any one thing, but frankly blaming colonisation does not excuse abusing your own family. You can only fix what is happening today.

Wow, OK.

So the history of what has happened to the indigenous population since European arrived isn't a factor and they should just get over it!

That's how that reads, and quite frankly if that's the view you hold then it explains your views quite clearly.

Yes, but the evidence does not support that.

I disagree.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...26127014028073065119074096&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
https://hir.harvard.edu/police-violence-australia-aboriginals/

 

[ShiftingGears]

The body-cam footage doesn't show that at all, self-harms quite tricky when you have a load of people in riot gear on top of you.

He was a diabetic, attempting to eat biscuits containing sugar, which initiated the confrontation.

I know there's the immediate similarities to George Floyd, which lends itself to people treating it as an open and shut case without room for nuance, but frankly that is wrong, and I'd suggest anyone read from Page 12 of the inquest report to see the timeline, if not the whole report.

https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/findings/2019/DUNGAY David - Findings - v2.pdf

You don't believe that if your actions or deliberate inactions cause the death of another person you should be held accountable?

Accountable yes, but I don't think that accountable means having your name posted in the public domain.

So the police and corrections system in Australia is perfect in that regard?

No system is perfect, that does not mean police brutality or racism is a systemic problem as was being stated by BLM protesters. I also dont think being only "not perfect" is the threshold for protests.

Not sure how you missed it, give you quoted it, but here we go again.

"Nor do death from illness or suicide preclude racism ,as a parallel black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in childbirth, due to the the difference in the way they are treated and how seriously they are taken when raising issues. Increased mortality rates most certainly can have an underlying racist cause even if you don't physically kill someone."

I don't disagree that it may be a contributing factor in adverse outcomes for minorities, however when there's no difference in those outcomes between an ethnic minority and ethnic majority, then I don't think its reasonable to assume racism is a factor in the outcome.

And that's an answer to which question?

The last one. Time will tell, frankly, noone assumed sepsis when someone is brought into custody, because that's extremely rare, and frankly, it was obviously wrong.

I'm simply clarify a point you raised, if the inference wasn't that its a difference between out views then why raise it at all?

Because some out there equate police being charged and convicted as the measure of accountability. Which is the presumptive standard in the article you provided.

Wow, OK.

So the history of what has happened to the indigenous population since European arrived isn't a factor and they should just get over it!

That's how that reads, and quite frankly if that's the view you hold then it explains your views quite clearly.

So I am absolutely clear;

It is a factor, and the main factor. It provides historical understanding, however no-one has a time machine, there is nothing that anyone can say or do that will change what happened. You can only look at what is happening today, and assess if it needs changing, then change it if so.

All that you can do if you have been impacted by trauma is to try and do your best to make the world better for your children than it was to you (this applies to everyone). And all society as a whole can do is look at the evidence of what is happening today and look to find what the real problems are, and what they aren't, and we do that by talking and by looking at the facts, and making decisions on that basis.

And to me, the facts say that police brutality is not the root cause of deaths in custody statistics in Australia, or that it's even noteworthy factor on any scale at all.

This is as the rate of indigenous deaths in custody is lower than non-indigenous deaths in custody, and Australians find the rate of non-indigenous deaths in custody acceptable. So it's either unacceptable for everyone, or it's acceptable.

Now as a society, Australia needs to discuss how to break the cycle of trauma.

Australian governments do have a lot of programs that support indigenous people, both in jobs programs, lower admission requirements for universities, welfare, as well as providing free healthcare to remote communities and supporting infrastructure and working with land councils and leaders to implement programs. I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't support these, so long as they are shown to be effective. So the opportunities are there, but offering change is one thing, and changing perceptions and making people feel empowered to change, is something else.

I disagree.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...26127014028073065119074096&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
https://hir.harvard.edu/police-violence-australia-aboriginals/

I will read the first one, however the second link re-covers the case in the above post, and also includes the same case I alluded to, whereby the cop was charged with murder for shooting someone who threatened to kill him, and was allegedly stabbing him with scissors.

 

[Scaff]

He was a diabetic, attempting to eat biscuits containing sugar, which initiated the confrontation.

My wife's a diabetic (type 1), she eats biscuits (with sugar in them), do you know how much immediate danger eating a biscuit poses to a diabetic (type 1 or 2), its zero. His levels were high, and guess what some of the effects of that can be (and I know these first hand) confusion, a lack of coordination and at times aggression. Exposing people in hyperglycemia to stress (and they certainly did) can make the hyperglycaemia worse.

I know there's the immediate similarities to George Floyd, which lends itself to people treating it as an open and shut case without room for nuance, but frankly that is wrong, and I'd suggest anyone read from Page 12 of the inquest report to see the timeline, if not the whole report.

https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/findings/2019/DUNGAY David - Findings - v2.pdf

I've both read it and watched the bodycam footage, what is undisputable is that they ignored him saying he couldn't breath, used the myth that 'if you can talk you can breath' and administer a sedative to someone who clearly and repeatedly stated they were unable to breath. Given that sedatives suppress breathing to someone complaining they can't breath and are in a hyperglycaemic state is utterly negligent.

Accountable yes, but I don't think that accountable means having your name posted in the public domain.

I disagree, public officials should be held publically accountable and that includes transparency.

No system is perfect, that does not mean police brutality or racism is a systemic problem as was being stated by BLM protesters. I also dont think being only "not perfect" is the threshold for protests.

It doesn't mean its not either.

I don't disagree that it may be a contributing factor in adverse outcomes for minorities, however when there's no difference in those outcomes between an ethnic minority and ethnic majority, then I don't think its reasonable to assume racism is a factor in the outcome.

Assumes the reasons for the outcomes are all the same.

The last one. Time will tell, frankly, noone assumed sepsis when someone is brought into custody, because that's extremely rare, and frankly, it was obviously wrong.

They (as in the police and the medical facility) had multiple opportunities to spot it, they failed to do so because they didn't listen to her or treat her contains of being in pain seriously. That's negligence.

Because some out there equate police being charged and convicted as the measure of accountability. Which is the presumptive standard in the article you provided.

It's a standard most people adopt, and as long as its proportionate that shouldn't be an issue.

So I am absolutely clear;

It is a factor, and the main factor. It provides historical understanding, however no-one has a time machine, there is nothing that anyone can say or do that will change what happened. You can only look at what is happening today, and assess if it needs changing, then change it if so.

All that you can do if you have been impacted by trauma is to try and do your best to make the world better for your children than it was to you (this applies to everyone). And all society as a whole can do is look at the evidence of what is happening today and look to find what the real problems are, and what they aren't, and we do that by talking and by looking at the facts, and making decisions on that basis.

And to me, the facts say that police brutality is not the root cause of deaths in custody statistics in Australia, or that it's even noteworthy factor on any scale at all.

This is as the rate of indigenous deaths in custody is lower than non-indigenous deaths in custody, and Australians find the rate of non-indigenous deaths in custody acceptable. So it's either unacceptable for everyone, or it's acceptable.

Now as a society, Australia needs to discuss how to break the cycle of trauma.

Australian governments do have a lot of programs that support indigenous people, both in jobs programs, lower admission requirements for universities, welfare, as well as providing free healthcare to remote communities and supporting infrastructure and working with land councils and leaders to implement programs. I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't support these, so long as they are shown to be effective. So the opportunities are there, but offering change is one thing, and changing perceptions and making people feel empowered to change, is something else.

Yet in your very post you defend one simple thing that would be a step along this path, transparency for accountability of public figures.

It's also quite clear even from outside the country that plenty of Australians don't support those programmes, and that casual racism is still far to prevalent within the country. Pauline Hanson and her parties ability to gain seats are indicative of that.

 

[Keef]

In terms of having crimes committed against them, why would they not be the same? If someone is beaten so severely that it requires surgery, why would it matter whether the victim was a cop or not? In the specific case we were talking about the victim was undercover, and so wasn't functionally different from a civilian in terms of what they were carrying. Why is it just that his attackers should not be accountable? The city paid out $5 million to the victim, so clearly they recognise that something went on, but somehow we're still at a stage where individuals are not being held responsible for their actions.

I don't buy that it's OK for perpetrators to get off just because the victim was a cop, that's not functionally any different to them getting off because he was a black man with a prior history and some drugs in his system. It only seems different to you because you're okay with seeing a cop get stomped into the ground.

Emphasis added. You're not quite getting my point. Somehow you're actually missing the entire point of this thread in that bolded statement.

In terms of having a crime committed against him, this uncover cop was treated the same. His attackers were not prosecuted lmao. That is the same as the plight dealt with by numerous civilians around the country. The guy was paid off by the city and no crimes or punishments were served...no justice was served. That is exactly the problem we're talking about, and that's why it happening to an uncover cop of all people is glorious karma. Frankly, the more cops this happens to, the more of them will realize, "Huh, I guess they were right, cops really don't get in trouble for committing crimes." If as a cop the experience required to realize that is to get beaten by your friends then so be it. This uncover cop getting justice actually would've been the worst thing to happen because it would've further illustrated how hard cops work to protect their own. It would've shown that cops receive justice but innocent people like Brianna Taylor never do. Instead what we saw was consistent with the status quo - no justice and lots of hush money.

Now I'm not saying that a person who suffers a crime by a cop doesn't deserve justice. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that this guy doesn't deserve it anymore than anybody else which is why I'm glad he didn't get it. It shows immense awareness by the jury in illustrating to the police that the system not only doesn't care about regular people but it also doesn't care about one of their own. The man still has his life and he should be happy with that much. Maybe now he'll realize how messed up things are and speak out against the system that protects him when he wears a uniform but doesn't when he doesn't. Maybe this will happen to more cops in the future and they'll all realize how messed up the system is that they participated in but never had the balls to do anything about. Maybe this will shine a light on the concept of undercover stings - once you take that uniform off and you can't easily be identified, you expose yourself to the wrath of the police and can no longer expect the justice system to help you.

The simplistic opposing argument would be that 'they' are not like 'us'. No society should ever be in that position.

A longer answer is that some members of the public train in law and the projection of society's force on those that don't uphold the commonly-agreed values. It may be that those trained members of the public are judged more lightly when they transgress certain rules, e.g. speeding on a motorway to reach an accident. Those members of the public remain members of the public and should have their equipment and protections removed if they transgress the law in a way that was not essential to protect person or property. Then they can get a job in a supermarket just like everybody else has to think about at some time in their lives.

Brianna Taylor can't get a job in a supermarket. There are people serving 10 years for carrying weed. They wish they had a job in a supermarket, they'd be rolling in money and eating expired steak like a king.

If mistakes are committed while exercising the force of law over other people, the consequences should be extreme. If a person can get that much time for drugs, the penalty for a cop beating someone should be, I don't know, let me hold my tongue here, whatever the military does since they seem to think they're soldiers. You know what, since cops and the military both fall under the executive branch maybe we should extend the courts-martial to the police. That should straighten them out.