The behaviour of US police officers

[Emily's Cat]

Or maybe Don Cherry's "Rock-Em, Sock-Em Curling!" videos.

I'm a fan of AvE. He's highly entertaining... and really, who doesn't enjoy an engineer taking things apart to see whether they're well made or not?

 

[Shalamar]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (March 1,2021): Raids

More Cancel Culture by the eeevil left.

/s

 

[bruto]

I'm a fan of AvE. He's highly entertaining... and really, who doesn't enjoy an engineer taking things apart to see whether they're well made or not?

I too, though I think his language has become more gratuitously salty recently.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I too, though I think his language has become more gratuitously salty recently.

I think it's his way of pushing back at YouTube's highly inconsistent rules

 

[Trebuchet]

I too, though I think his language has become more gratuitously salty recently.

At some point his little Chickadee is going to figure out how to find his videos on her own.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Buffalo cops that shoved an old man and cracked his skull resulting in brain injury are cleared by grand jury.

Pigs above the law once again.

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/no-indictment-for-two-buffalo-police-officers-charged-with-pushing-75-year-old-protester/article_893ec3d6-6cad-11eb-98a6-4335d875af41.html

Fire up them torches, time for some riots.

So quick to advocate for domestic Terrorism as the solution again.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So quick to advocate for domestic Terrorism as the solution again.

There comes a time when the worm has to turn.

 

[Distracted1]

There comes a time when the worm has to turn.

That is a "CHUD" of a different color.

 

[Brainster]

So quick to advocate for domestic Terrorism as the solution again.

One would almost think he was a fan of violent insurrection.

 

[johnny karate]

Forum conservatives coming out strongly against theoretical domestic terrorism.

Unfortunately, that’s where it stops.

 

[Shalamar]

Forum conservatives coming out strongly against theoretical domestic terrorism.

Unfortunately, that’s where it stops.

It’s only wrong when liberals (claim to want to) do it.

Just like how conservatives pretend to “back the blue” except when the conservatives are trying insurrection and the police are trying to stop it.

Liberals wanting to prevent excessive force by the police and hold them accountable = bad.

Conservatives actually performing insurrection, fighting police, all to overturn a valid and legal election = good.

 

[Darat]

Folk keep to the topic of this thread which is not insurrections, riots and so on but the behaviour of police. Plenty of other threads if you want to discuss those topics. Of course discussing police behaviour during a riot or insurrection is fine.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[HoverBoarder]

Nothing happens in a vacuum. There has been a massive increase in crime throughout much of the US, and most of the worst increases has been focused on cities that have reduced their police forces and have taken other actions against them.

The police forces work for the community, and their job is one of the few professions where they put their lives on the line everyday to protect our safety. Without police, there would be a massive increase in deaths all throughout the community. As has been shown in times when they pull back from neighborhoods.

For a group that is putting so much in the line for us, their behavior is obviously going to change if their dedication and sacrifices are constantly ignored and they are told that they are all bastards, and they should all die. Those who choose to stay and still go out and put their lives on the line because of their dedication to the community is commendable.

Policies like defund that were intended to change police behavior have largely been massive failures, and have led to far more deaths than the police killings they were originally protesting against. A call for defund has just become a call to advocate for being a mass murderer, and the lawmakers who enacted them have blood on their hands. Those who have backtracked like in Minneapolis have to rely on the police being better people than they were.

If we really want to improve the behaviors of police and improve their relationships with the community, we have to look at some of the main reasons why the increases in violent interactions are occuring.

One explanation is that when people become police officers, their hearts automatically grow evil inside it. Or that the power they hold corrupts them into making bad decisions. That may make people feel good to think in their actions against the police, but it is obviously not a serious explanation.

The power dynamic that police hold does lead to some accuses of power, but if you look at almost all of the high profile police killings in this country, they have started with attacks on the police. Specifically the growing trend and belief that if people attack police officers, that they should receive no negative repercussions for their actions.

Many of the policies propsing to improve interactions with police, are primarily just meant to make the lawmakers and their supporters feel good about themselves, rather than going through the hard work to make serious positive changes. Especially since demonizing the police over making sound policies has such better political capital than anything that would require everyone to work together. Many times they have made the situation worse, because they do not look at the repercussions of their policies.

If we really wanted to make things better with the police we have to make a more holistic solution.

Including:

-Addressing the acceptance of attacks on the police in the community.
-Finding ways for the community and the police to increase communication and collaboration
-Address rogue PAs that refuse to prosecute crimes
-Increasing non lethal tools and options rather than reducing them
-Declare intentional attacks on police as hate crimes

 

[johnny karate]

No argument for improved policing is in good faith unless it addresses the abuses of power that some police engage in and the attempts to cover up these abuses that all police engage in.

 

[johnny karate]

Also, if we’re going to decry violent attacks against police as some kind of terrible scourge, that needs to be weighed against the deafening silence - and in some cases support - from police unions for the violent attacks against police on January 6th.

 

[Belz...]

Instead of giving you an error, videos like this should just redirect to live streams of curling.

I think that would violate the Geneva conventions.

 

[Aridas]

Also, if we’re going to decry violent attacks against police as some kind of terrible scourge, that needs to be weighed against the deafening silence - and in some cases support - from police unions for the violent attacks against police on January 6th.

Honestly, it should also be weighed against, for example, the quite pronounced reduction in killings by police in places where peaceful BLM protests have occurred and succeeded in getting, for example, police to be required to wear active body cams. A much less selectively one-sided consideration of the totality of the situation needs acknowledged before the points that HoverBoarder makes deserve to be treated as much other than bad faith excuses for why brazen crime by police should be ignored.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Also, if we’re going to decry violent attacks against police as some kind of terrible scourge, that needs to be weighed against the deafening silence - and in some cases support - from police unions for the violent attacks against police on January 6th.

The violent attacks against police, and specifically the popularization of that as a reasonable tactic is the primary reason for most of the high profile lethal police encounters lately.

If the policies to address the issue don't address that, than it is clear that their primary purpose is not to prevent more deadly encounters from happening in the future, but rather the pursuit of dishonest moral superiority by demonizing police.

 

[HoverBoarder]

No argument for improved policing is in good faith unless it addresses the abuses of power that some police engage in and the attempts to cover up these abuses that all police engage in.

I would agree with that. That is certainly something that needs to be addressed. However many of the solutions are very one sided, and not collaborative. If we want the policies involving police to be effective, than we need to involve the police in them.

Most people are not bad people inherently, they are primarily just products of their environment. When you push the public and police into such a polarized sides, people are naturally going to protect their own. Especially when one side is consistently calling for the murder of the other side.

Many of the policies meant to improve police behavior, have not only not worked, but they have just resulted in under policing and the unnecessary deaths that go along with that.

If the primary purpose of those policies does not address the primary reason for those killings, than there is going to be no improvement on the issue. The police may improve their own tactics, but as long as it is acceptable and encouraged to attack them and in many cases try to kill them, than there still will be unnecessary violence because of that.

 

[Aridas]

I would agree with that. That is certainly something that needs to be addressed. However many of the solutions are very one sided, and not collaborative. If we want the policies involving police to be effective, than we need to involve the police in them.

Last I heard, that's been done over and over - with the police, as an organization, happily ignoring every bit of unenforced accountability that they could. Of course police should be involved in policies involving them, but, by the evidence, honesty and good faith on the police's side simply cannot be relied upon. Period. That creates a distinctly unpleasant situation all around.

Most people are not bad people inherently, they are primarily just products of their environment. When you push the public and police into such a polarized sides, people are naturally going to protect their own.

A base problem there, of course, is that the police were already actively working to "protect their own" and much of what immensely less centralized and organized polarization there is on the public's side is simply a reaction to that "protection" being at extremely problematic levels that allow police to literally get away with murder scot-free.

Especially when one side is consistently calling for the murder of the other side.

This statement, however, is overwhelmingly dishonest in how you're clearly using it. "The public" is NOT ******* calling for the murder of the police. The rest of your post seems to rest upon that lie and, as such, can simply be ignored.