• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armitage72 said:
It reminds me of the scene in "Driving Miss Daisy" in which two racist cops assumed that Morgan Freeman's character had stolen the car that he drove as a chauffeur.
"Hey boy, what do you think you're doing with this car?"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Click to expand...

I had a (black) colleague who was interviewing for a Dean's position at Duke back in 2010 or so. He was going to visit another campus and was riding in the back of limosine, which had a black driver.

They got pulled over.

Suffice to say, he did not take the Dean's position at Duke.
 
Is it just me or is Colorado over-represented in these stories?

When I moved to this state I asked my apartment matching agent to keep me out of Aurora. Not because I was afraid of the other residents, but because I'd heard one too many stories about the police there.
 
Disbelief said:
Another tough guy, this time a 12 year old autistic boy was a big threat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-deputy-tased-12-old-100025940.html
Click to expand...

So his punishment for hogtieing a 12 year old and tasing him is... he'll need to transfer to another department. A job where you can inflict pain and suffering on helpless people without serious consequence will attract candidates that want to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people. Its like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
lobosrul5 said:
So his punishment for hogtieing a 12 year old and tasing him is... he'll need to transfer to another department.
Click to expand...

Yes and it will stay that was as long as:

1. Police have one of the most powerful unions in the country.
2. The Police Unions have a "It's completely unreasonable to expect us to not sometimes murder people." stance.
3. The Democrats are in love with Unions
4. The Republicans are in love with the Police.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yes and it will stay that was as long as:

1. Police have one of the most powerful unions in the country.
2. The Police Unions have a "It's completely unreasonable to expect us to not sometimes murder people." stance.
3. The Democrats are in love with Unions
4. The Republicans are in love with the Police.
Click to expand...

For the most part the Democrats are also in love with the police. Let's not kid ourselves.
 
Suddenly said:
For the most part the Democrats are also in love with the police. Let's not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

I know but the gloriously perfect Progressive Ruling Class can't agree on when the revolution will start, so I'm working with what we've got.
 
Suddenly said:
For the most part the Democrats are also in love with the police. Let's not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

Or they're too afraid of losing elections. Ad after ad after ad here is the GoP candidate* going after their dem opponent for not being an absolutely 100% lockstep bootlicking supporter of the police. The GoP governor candidate here ran an ad about how his home was invaded and his daughter had to call the police who didn't show up for 12 minutes. Strongly insinuating this was the current governors fault. A bit of research showed the event in question happened in 2012 during Governor Susana's term... who is a republican. AND PEOPLE ARE FALLING FOR IT.


*Or a super-pac that is totally independent of the candidate *wink* *wink*
 
The former police chief of Orlando is running for Senator. She's still soft on crime according to her Republican opponent.

I hate politics.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The former police chief of Orlando is running for Senator. She's still soft on crime according to her Republican opponent.

I hate politics.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's just like any time a democratic member of congress runs for President, they are described as "the most liberal member of congress"
 
pgwenthold said:
Oh, it's just like any time a democratic member of congress runs for President, they are described as "the most liberal member of congress"
Click to expand...

Every Democrat has been both in a quantum state of a too much of a radical leftist and too much of a boring centrists for a while now.

Everyone is the most liberal liberal who ever liberaled and not liberal enough.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Or they're too afraid of losing elections. Ad after ad after ad here is the GoP candidate* going after their dem opponent for not being an absolutely 100% lockstep bootlicking supporter of the police. The GoP governor candidate here ran an ad about how his home was invaded and his daughter had to call the police who didn't show up for 12 minutes. Strongly insinuating this was the current governors fault. A bit of research showed the event in question happened in 2012 during Governor Susana's term... who is a republican. AND PEOPLE ARE FALLING FOR IT.


*Or a super-pac that is totally independent of the candidate *wink* *wink*
Click to expand...

Democrats don't seem to have ever grasped that actions don't much matter. That if they are going to face the same cookie cutter GOP attacks maybe just do the right thing instead of compromise themselves in a futile attempt to head off a bad faith attack.

It seems odd, but if I look back at the... oh lord... 20+ years I've been floating around my state's criminal justice system I wind up with the conclusion that among the judges and prosecutors I've had dealings with the ones that were Republican were on the whole far more in actual practice reasonable to deal with than the Democrats.

The harshest (w/r/t criminal defendants) appellate judge I've been before was a Democrat who lost an election to a Republican that attacked him for being soft on crime. Then the Republican got into office and wound up being largely responsible for creating and funding community based substance abuse and mental health courts and wrote several influential well reasoned and balanced opinions in criminal issues.

I mean, other than that he was so in the bag for coal companies that John Grisham wrote a novel about it so maybe not a net positive, but still...
 
Democrats think most voters make intentional rational decisions based on policy and never seem to fully grasp that politics is a much more gut, whether or not you "like" the candidate in a very vague, loosely defined way kind of thing.

Long story short Democrats have never understand the problem has never been about people not liking their policies. Democratic policies almost always are more popular, very often by a very safe margin.

Voters like Democrat policies. They don't like Democrats. And the fact that a lot of Democratic Leadership just tilted their head and went "I don't understand that's the same thing" is the problem.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Democrats think most voters make intentional rational decisions based on policy and never seem to fully grasp that politics is a much more gut, whether or not you "like" the candidate in a very vague, loosely defined way kind of thing.

Long story short Democrats have never understand the problem has never been about people not liking their policies. Democratic policies almost always are more popular, very often by a very safe margin.

Voters like Democrat policies. They don't like Democrats. And the fact that a lot of Democratic Leadership just tilted their head and went "I don't understand that's the same thing" is the problem.
Click to expand...

Really.

Democrats could address these things at a gut level. It isn't like it's hard to conceptualize.

Police, for example. Defund the police is not a good slogan, but responding to that with "fund the police" is craven. "Make policing easier" by funding programs that take much of the unfair burden of random tasks off law enforcement? Crisis workers, etc.

...that's more the right track.
 
Suddenly said:
Really.

Democrats could address these things at a gut level. It isn't like it's hard to conceptualize.

Police, for example. Defund the police is not a good slogan, but responding to that with "fund the police" is craven. "Make policing easier" by funding programs that take much of the unfair burden of random tasks off law enforcement? Crisis workers, etc.

...that's more the right track.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but then the question arises about how to fund such schemes. If the expenditure is in addition to spending on the police then it's just the usual Democratic Party "tax and spend" to expand the state and take money from hard working families.

If the schemes are funded by reducing the Police budget (because they no longer have to do those tasks) then they are defunding the Police.

Heads the GOP winds, tails the donks lose. ;)
 
The Don said:
Perhaps, but then the question arises about how to fund such schemes. If the expenditure is in addition to spending on the police then it's just the usual Democratic Party "tax and spend" to expand the state and take money from hard working families.

If the schemes are funded by reducing the Police budget (because they no longer have to do those tasks) then they are defunding the Police.
;)
Click to expand...

The question here is not of substance and rather perception and tactics. The general point is that a basic law of politics is that you always want to make the other side explain things. The more you are explaining the more you are losing.

Those questions you ask should never be answered. Best case they never get asked because we've already attacked by framing it as an issue of streamlining and modernizing law enforcement. That by forcing cops to be babysitters for the sick we endanger the lives of the cops, waste money, and clog up the criminal justice system and let the real baddies go free.

One obvious move is to use jargon and governmental organization to make it appear that these mental health workers are basically cops. They are there to respond to and help enforce the laws pertaining to those mentally ill and/or addicted people who are a danger to self or others.

Then further specialization until law enforcement is redesigned. Defunding the police becomes the result rather than the stated goal.
 
Suddenly said:
One obvious move is to use jargon and governmental organization to make it appear that these mental health workers are basically cops. They are there to respond to and help enforce the laws pertaining to those mentally ill and/or addicted people who are a danger to self or others.
Click to expand...

The term "first responder" comes to mind rather than "basically cops". It has a positive connotation and effectively conveys the idea of using the right tool for the job.
 
gnome said:
The term "first responder" comes to mind rather than "basically cops". It has a positive connotation and effectively conveys the idea of using the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

That would be a good way to implement the general idea.

"We don't ask our police to put out fires so why are we asking them to treat the mentally ill?
 
Suddenly said:
That would be a good way to implement the general idea.

"We don't ask our police to put out fires so why are we asking them to treat the mentally ill?
Click to expand...

Hey, hey, hey. If we don't send the cops out to mentally ill people, especially those threatening suicide, then who is going to kill them instead?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom