Bill really nailed this one.

[Phil1111 910]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

... the "we can never give an inch lest the commie abortionist welfare queens who want to end Christmas" conservative faction, as always, don't want to give an inch.

Joe gets carried away sometimes. Translation trump, police unions and GOP hard liners.

[Phil1111 910]

14 hours ago, airdvr said:

That's because it's been talked to death. I'm not seeing anyone "raging" about white liberals.  Changes are being made ..

Changes are being made? The Black-White Wage Gap Is as Big as It Was in 1950

"the end of enforced segregation across the South, the legalization of interracial marriage, the passage of multiple civil rights laws and more — the wages of black men trail those of white men by as much as when Harry Truman was president. That gap indicates that there have also been powerful forces pushing against racial equality."

[Coreece 190]

29 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Changes are being made? The Black-White Wage Gap Is as Big as It Was in 1950

"the end of enforced segregation across the South, the legalization of interracial marriage, the passage of multiple civil rights laws and more — the wages of black men trail those of white men by as much as when Harry Truman was president. That gap indicates that there have also been powerful forces pushing against racial equality."

Old article but still relevant, plus it's not influenced by recent events.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/exit-left/476190/

"Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped end apartheid conditions in the South, a critical objective for which grassroots black Southern activists fought and died, the legislation did little to address the structures of racism that shaped black lives in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. This was an intentional consequence of how the bill’s sponsors, largely liberals from the North, Midwest, and West, crafted the legislation."

“People have to understand that although the civil-rights bill was good. . .there was nothing in it that had any effect whatsoever on the three major problems Negroes face in the North: housing, jobs, and integrated schools…the civil-rights bill, because of this failure, has caused an even deeper frustration in the North.”

"This poses the biggest problem for black voters today, which is that Democrats running for state or national office aspire to win black votes without appearing to be beholden to black voters. This is especially true of the three Democratic presidents since Kennedy and Johnson. Black support was crucial to the elections of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (each received over 80 percent of black votes), but both distanced themselves from policies that might seem to disproportionately help black people."

"More recently, as more groups—evangelicals, gays and lesbians, and gun owners, among them—lobby for specific policies, black voters have seen their interests deemed too “special” for consideration by a democratic administration. President Obama has felt the pressure to connect with black voters while distancing himself from black interests."

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Coreece

[CoolBeans 11]

33 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Changes are being made? The Black-White Wage Gap Is as Big as It Was in 1950

"the end of enforced segregation across the South, the legalization of interracial marriage, the passage of multiple civil rights laws and more — the wages of black men trail those of white men by as much as when Harry Truman was president. That gap indicates that there have also been powerful forces pushing against racial equality."

Guess what, Asians make even more than Whites. And Hispanic make even less than Blacks.

https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-2018/

Why is nobody crying about that?

[Coreece 190]

14 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

start learning from other countries.

Moderata samlingspartiet

[sfzombie13 307]

12 hours ago, mistercwood said:

One of the issues I have with this solution is that tech mishaps DO happen, so I don't like the idea of a firing just because of equipment failure. The solution I read of that seems best to straddle the line is that if the cam is off for any interaction that leads to potential charges, the officers testimony becomes inadmissible.

it's relatively easy to have logs enabled on cameras to show when the power button is pressed.  deliberately turning off a camera should be grounds for immediate dismissal.  there are so many ways to handle this issue it is essentially just adherence to racist policies that is stopping progress.  we have made some progress in the last 50 years, but not much.  but hey, at least we don't have to look at that racist syrup any longer.

[turtlespeed 212]

10 hours ago, normiss said:

On probation, so he wants no part of a police interaction. THIS is where he changes his thinking.

I wonder what the conditions of his probation were.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

19 hours ago, mistercwood said:

One of the issues I have with this solution is that tech mishaps DO happen, so I don't like the idea of a firing just because of equipment failure. The solution I read of that seems best to straddle the line is that if the cam is off for any interaction that leads to potential charges, the officers testimony becomes inadmissible.

See the bottom quote.

I've seen zillions of Go-Pro video. The difference between a 'failure' and someone reaching up and pushing the off button is pretty clear.

12 hours ago, olofscience said:

I'm all for technological solutions, but until someone investigates the police who are not the police, this would limit the effectiveness.

In the UK we have the IPCC - Independent Police Complaints Commission that handles any cases of alleged police misconduct. A body like them would be in charge of handling evidence from bodycams, getting witness statements, etc, because you simply can't trust the police department to do that to their own. They're too close to the cases.

As the Romans said, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

No argument. 
We need REAL oversight of the cops. Not just a 'whitewash board', that is far, far, faaaaar too common.

6 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

it's relatively easy to have logs enabled on cameras to show when the power button is pressed.  deliberately turning off a camera should be grounds for immediate dismissal.  there are so many ways to handle this issue it is essentially just adherence to racist policies that is stopping progress.  we have made some progress in the last 50 years, but not much.  but hey, at least we don't have to look at that racist syrup any longer.

 

[normiss 622]

Like seen on police body cam videos "Don't say anything now. Video"

[timski 80]

On 6/24/2020 at 11:19 PM, airdvr said:

If you watch the Rayshard video it becomes pretty clear he could have been subdued with a chokehold.  I don't think you can completely disarm LE.  A simple chokehold would have ended the scuffle.  Question is, when is the chokehold deadly?

When rendered in the right way, a choke hold stops the flow of blood to the brain, which you then "pass out" from. See cage fighters... This can be achieved within seconds. They tap because they know there going out. Also a ref is there to step in...  So the "deadly" reference is super vague and depends on blood flow and oxygen restrictions/duration...   

[Phil1111 910]

8 minutes ago, timski said:

When rendered in the right way, a choke hold stops the flow of blood to the brain, which you then "pass out" from. See cage fighters... This can be achieved within seconds. They tap because they know there going out. Also a ref is there to step in...  So the "deadly" reference is super vague and depends on blood flow and oxygen restrictions/duration...   

More usually it stops the ability to breathe. Thats why people in the chokehold complain that they can't breathe. It only takes 10-20 seconds for someone to pass out from the interuption of bloodflow to the brain. As compared to the longer time for a chokehold to the windpipe to effect subconsciousness or compliance.

Lack of bloodflow to the brain results in sudden unconsciousness. Full explanation of both.

[airdvr 197]

Not sure how the use of the hold resulted in a death unless someone is poorly trained.  I think cops should have this back in their arsenal.  It would ultimately eliminate some deaths like Rayshard.

[turtlespeed 212]

26 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Not sure how the use of the hold resulted in a death unless someone is poorly trained.  I think cops should have this back in their arsenal.  It would ultimately eliminate some deaths like Rayshard.

We can probably leave it in if we remove immunity.

If the cop chooses to use that technique then he is fully liable, criminally, for the use of that technique. 

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Not sure how the use of the hold resulted in a death unless someone is poorly trained.  

Or doesn't care. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a significant enough subset of police officers who don't care how badly they injure the people they are arresting that they can't be trusted to only continue with correctly applied chokeholds.

Quote

It would ultimately eliminate some deaths like Rayshard.

That's absurd. It's definitely easier to train officers that they will go to jail if they shoot fleeing suspects in the back than it is to train them to always use correct chokehold technique against a struggling suspect.

 

On the subject of those cops who either don't care about or want to hurt the people they're arresting I was struck by the reaction of the cop in this video about a minute in when he realises the guy whose wrist he just broke is just a random bystander. It's the face and body language of a guy who knows how badly he's fucked up. If his actions had been reasonable and appropriate for the situation he thought he was in he wouldn't be looking like that. But no, because he thought the guy had a warrant on him he thought he'd be able to get away with an unprovoked violent assault.  That's what you're dealing with, not poorly trained technique.

[airdvr 197]

46 minutes ago, jakee said:

Or doesn't care. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a significant enough subset of police officers who don't care how badly they injure the people they are arresting that they can't be trusted to only continue with correctly applied chokeholds.

That's absurd. It's definitely easier to train officers that they will go to jail if they shoot fleeing suspects in the back than it is to train them to always use correct chokehold technique against a struggling suspect.

 

On the subject of those cops who either don't care about or want to hurt the people they're arresting I was struck by the reaction of the cop in this video about a minute in when he realises the guy whose wrist he just broke is just a random bystander. It's the face and body language of a guy who knows how badly he's fucked up. If his actions had been reasonable and appropriate for the situation he thought he was in he wouldn't be looking like that. But no, because he thought the guy had a warrant on him he thought he'd be able to get away with an unprovoked violent assault.  That's what you're dealing with, not poorly trained technique.

Wouldn't the officer in that video be an example of poorly trained?

[jakee 1,254]

8 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wouldn't the officer in that video be an example of poorly trained?

Explain to me why?

 

He executed a valid technique he was trained to use against suspects resisting arrest and he immediately achieved the outcome he wanted. The problem is that he used it against someone who was neither resisting arrest nor a suspect.