This is going to be contentious, I'm putting it right out there.
The recent rash of "Swatting" (as well as general responses by police to situations around the nation) have really made me think about a few things. I think we all recall that 80's and 90's cop dramas showed how dangerous law enforcement is, and how criminals always have the advantage, and no one wants their loved ones getting that phone call. However, I think maybe it's time to consider a different side.
Many have already argued that police are using too much force and escalate their responses too quickly to reasonably determine a threat. The counter is, these days, that this is the ONLY way for police to stay safe, precisely because they can't possibly know who's going to be a threat to them.
I'm starting to think maybe the correct solution may just be, and I know this is terrible, that police should "suck it up" and accept that they may lose their life at any time. I intentionally put that in the worst way possible. To put it another way, the job of police officer, sheriff, what have you, has always been one that's dangerous, and probably a lot more dangerous in the past, and yet the basic protections citizens were promised FROM such officers were still put in place, knowing all of that. Everyone's so afraid of death these days, of an officer getting gunned down in the line of duty, that perhaps we've forgotten that the job of police officer is, um, "supposed" to be very dangerous. That's the price you pay when you decide to protect the innocent. I wonder if it's just irrational to be someone who wants to stay a police officer and also demand that they be able to escalate things in a way that could easily result in hurting those they've sworn to protect, basically making whether or not the person they kill in any one incident a complete unknown to them before they take it to that point. The only reason "Swatting" works at all is because police are taking what they feel is the necessary precaution of not tipping off the party in question one bit so they can stage their attack with the element of surprise. Maybe the ONLY way a police force can work well without endangering the citizens they're supposed to protect is if they are forced to not take these escalation precautions, to be forced to leave themselves open to attack again and again, night after night, for the sake of preventing oh so many wrongful deaths by police action.
Cold as it is, I think maybe this is the only way the police can work, have EVER worked, and if any officers aren't comfortable with these risks in the name of a safer pursuit of justice, they should turn in that badge and retire right then and there.
This is probably the worst thing I've ever said.
No, this is spot on. The duty of a cop is to serve and protect. If police and politicians acted in accordance to serving the public, we wouldn't have so many problems today.
It's not that I'm a cold-hearted "fuck da police" type. It's that a cop's literal duty is to put his life on the line to protect people. If a crazed gunman is on the loose, police are obligated to try to talk him down before shooting at him. If putting a bullet into the criminal's head is literally the only way to prevent him from killing other citizens and the police, that decision is obvious. What isn't obvious is knowing when you're able to de-escalate a situation without further violence. Killing a person, criminal or not, should be the very last resort.
How do we fix the cops vs. citizens problem? My question is, can we hire more cops to patrol neighborhoods, and also get into closer relationships with its citizens? It's inefficient for a cop to act the peace keeper if he doesn't even understand the peace he's keeping. I know there are all logistical problems here, and it's a rather vague idea to start with, but I think this is the core of the problem. If cops could more easily understand and empathize with a person, not only would they not be so quick to draw a pistol, but maybe the crazed gunmen will know them and be willing to talk.
We need cops who are intelligent, empathic, and can make quick decisions. Firearms training should come AFTER that has been established.
It's the reason Mike Brown was murdered. He was shot once and retreated from Darren Wilson. Wilson stepped out of his car and finished the job. A life was lost that night, we'll never get to hear testimony from Brown because he's gone, kaput. Lives have been ruined, communities are understandably restless. An even more compelling case is the Eric Garner one. I just don't understand people who cheer on the police and say "YEAH, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET, YOU GOD DAMN THUGS". And in many cases, "thugs" is a racist dog-whistle for "black people". Black folks are seen as criminals before human beings.
"YOU JUST NEED TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, NEVER RESIST ARREST, EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE", people say this shit unironically. Funny enough, if you follow up with a conversation about the Constitution, they typically lament that its rules aren't being followed closely enough. Well no shit, sherlock. If more voters put better thought into this, we wouldn't be in this mess!
It's like reading The Trial by Franz Kafka, then going onto your twitter and posting #LawyersLivesMatter.
These are thoughts I've been having. I don't really doubt myself too much, but I always have to consider that I might be dead wrong, especially when I am saying something like "you have to be willing to take direct and immediate risk to your own life in a job like your's". I better be damned sure I've got a solid moral argument before I say something like that.
In some countries (and, in fact, in our's several decades ago) it was common for a police officer to walk their beat without even having a gun on them. They'd need to go back for it, so immediate self defense literally wasn't an option. I WANT to say "we should return to this", but I am VERY nervous about suggesting something like that, very concerned that this may be the wrong solution. I can say one thing. I have no idea why the police in my town are all wearing black. What ever happened to blue police uniforms? They seem a lot more threatening in black. An argument could be made that it makes them harder to see at night, but... well I'm not sure those are the right priorities for peace officers.
Your suggestion of having police do a few more "on foot" beats to get better acquainted with the neighborhoods they are sworn to protect? A good one, but times have changes quite a bit, and it's a bit harder, logistically, to do such a thing. Downtown areas and big cities? This is probably easier, actually. An area like Tulsa? People are so far apart here now, over such a large area, that neighbors who've lived by each other for years don't even know each other. Apartments are "weird" and a sign you're living in poverty. Everyone is "supposed" to live in a house they own, didn't you know that? The sheer number of police one would need to hire to actually allow for on-foot patrols to cover every neighborhood (or heck, even one neighborhood depending on the size of your suburb-based town), well, it just isn't feasible.
I'm not really sure what a good solution is, but it does seem like having police not see the citizens as "them" but rather "us" is absolutely vital.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:These are thoughts I've been having. I don't really doubt myself too much, but I always have to consider that I might be dead wrong, especially when I am saying something like "you have to be willing to take direct and immediate risk to your own life in a job like your's". I better be damned sure I've got a solid moral argument before I say something like that.
Fair point, but anyone we grant to use deadly force must be scrutinized. I don't think cops should not carry guns, but body cameras seem like a good idea. What if we exact a harsh punishment for not wearing one, especially if the cop has used deadly force? There are reforms we could put in place, and hopefully we'll begin seeing them.
Quote:Your suggestion of having police do a few more "on foot" beats to get better acquainted with the neighborhoods they are sworn to protect? A good one, but times have changes quite a bit, and it's a bit harder, logistically, to do such a thing. Downtown areas and big cities? This is probably easier, actually. An area like Tulsa? People are so far apart here now, over such a large area, that neighbors who've lived by each other for years don't even know each other.
True, I'm mostly imagining big cities in this case. Don't most of these shootings seem to occur in urban areas? You've got your suburban school shootings of course, but I'm more concerned with high crime areas where the officer may be tense and have an itchy finger. I wish I knew a cop personally to get that perspective. I have a friend who has a brother. I'd love to pick his brain, though these are politically loaded times, it's difficult for any of us to keep a cool head, least of all someone directly impacted.
I can't imagine small, homogenized towns having the same sorts of problems. My suggestion may sound prescriptive, but I just meant it as a spring board, certainly not a solution for every district across the country. There's also no telling how to monitor or enforce a cop getting "better acquainted" with high crime areas. A door-to-door introduction? Lawhovas witnesses? Like I said, the idea is vague, but there might be more to unpack there.
Better training is the key, the specifics are difficult.
I read the first page of your link Falcon. A good point brought up is that American citizens are more armed than citizens of other countries. I don't feel like reading the rest, maybe later. How do you feel? I would venture a guess to the pro gun control realm. For myself, I've always been a little divided on gun control. Certainly firearms can be used safely and for good recreation. On the other hand, is the expense worth it? More guns means higher security, as police don't know if their perpetrator has a weapon.
Let's put aside an obvious case like Eric Garner. Let's say that an assailant does not have his hands showing. It takes a keen instinct and quick reflexes to disable a person you think has a weapon. An important objective on top of that is to disable them non-fatally. So perhaps more training in that arena, along with weapons that aren't lethal, like a stun gun and nightsticks. Do cops have hand-to-hand training, or is it mostly firearm?
Some say that less gun control makes crime drop, but I am skeptical of the statistic, having only heard it from an anti-gun-control advocate. One thing is true, guns are so widespread that taking them back would be a tricky, cumbersome task. I bet the NRA loves it when a democrat takes office. They can really jack up the rhetoric. Ammunition sales spike when people think their guns are being taken away. I need to pay attention the next time a democrat takes office and put some stock money into that shit.
Welp, Baltimore shit the bed. Over a silly thing like a black man being murdered in police custody, having his spine mysteriously broken in several places! Usually when white people riot, it's over some sportsball game that they either won or lost.
Love seeing friends co-opt Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy to decry riots. I always reply and show them the quote from a speech he made, where he, you know, describes his thoughts on riots. Namely that non-violence must always be stressed, and while riots are not ideal for several reasons, if a pot is put on the burner then it inevitably boils. You know what's even funnier? I saw a friend, months back, post the episode of The Boondocks, where King is resurrected and sees the state of black affairs, and yells at his own people. The political climate was that of Michael Brown / Eric Garner. This your prototypical Stupid White Man. In the throes of an argument, he threw up his hands and essentially said WELL BLACK PEOPLE CAN LEAVE THE GHETTO ANY TIME THEY WANT THEY'RE JUST TOO DUMB. So here's this guy with these awful opinions on racial affairs, and he's saying "Dr. King would agree with me, all you dumb niggers are being dumb, you have all the rights you need by this point. I am not black, ergo issues that impact black people are illusory."
You hang out a lot on the internet with a bunch of other white losers, you seeing creepy shit like Men's Rights Activism, Pick-up Artists, not really so far removed from White Supremacy when you think of it in the abstract. And they justify it by saying "Well see from an physiological standpoint, black people are inferior, you ever see any of them build a rocket and go to the moon? Check and mate, libtard." God DAMN I love the internet. These are the same stupid men that believe in the Ladder Theory, that women go for Alpha Male, basically men who never hang out with women as friends, but they're experts because they remember High School Biology.
Anyway, in the case of Baltimore, six police officers have been charged with murder. These cases are becoming high profile and difficult to sweep under the rug. The police officer in South Carolina who shot a black man in the back and planted a weapon on him, is also facing murder charges. Look at that! It's almost like rioting does something! (Granted, in this case, it was video footage that saved the day, but let's not split hairs.) I can't fucking stand to hear people say "WELL THEMS SAVAGE FOLKS IS DESTROYING THEY OWN STORES". I overheard a couple of morons talking about it in hushed voices in the break room at work. There is no fist pump big enough.
These people apparently forget that this country was founded on rioting. Boston Tea Party anyone? Funny how no one has the same attitude about that. When White people riot, it's for a Purpose. When Black people riot, the Fox News of the world love to paint them as Thugs. It's White supremacy underneath the surface, and it doesn't take a whole lot of IQ points to see.
Honestly, as far as politics go, I posit that if a person reaches a certain level of emotional intelligence, there's hardly a debate on certain issues. Welfare programs, housing for the poor, etc. Anyone with proper empathic sense can and should see that reducing the misery of the state's citizens, is more important than getting "gouged" by taxes or whatever. Look, the state provides you with policemen, roads, phone lines, transportation. If you don't want to pay into the state for the welfare of its people, then get the fuck out. Go to a libertarian paradise like Somalia, see how well you thrive you fucking dipshit.
What's happening in Baltimore is yet another example of exactly how the police have abused the black community. While I can't support violence, on sheer principal, it's important to note exactly why they are where they are now.
What gets me is how the various infamous gangs have come together in the name of peace, advocating a stop to the riot and a continuation of the peaceful protesting. I want to make something clear, there are a LOT of peaceful protesters, they just aren't as interesting to the news. I hope the gangs continue this trend and reform themselves into a force for good, as they seem to be doing.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:I read the first page of your link Falcon. A good point brought up is that American citizens are more armed than citizens of other countries. I don't feel like reading the rest, maybe later. How do you feel? I would venture a guess to the pro gun control realm. For myself, I've always been a little divided on gun control. Certainly firearms can be used safely and for good recreation. On the other hand, is the expense worth it? More guns means higher security, as police don't know if their perpetrator has a weapon.
Let's put aside an obvious case like Eric Garner. Let's say that an assailant does not have his hands showing. It takes a keen instinct and quick reflexes to disable a person you think has a weapon. An important objective on top of that is to disable them non-fatally. So perhaps more training in that arena, along with weapons that aren't lethal, like a stun gun and nightsticks. Do cops have hand-to-hand training, or is it mostly firearm?
Some say that less gun control makes crime drop, but I am skeptical of the statistic, having only heard it from an anti-gun-control advocate. One thing is true, guns are so widespread that taking them back would be a tricky, cumbersome task. I bet the NRA loves it when a democrat takes office. They can really jack up the rhetoric. Ammunition sales spike when people think their guns are being taken away. I need to pay attention the next time a democrat takes office and put some stock money into that shit.
Indeed, I strongly support gun control. Handguns should be banned (not all guns, focus on handguns because so much gun violence is committed with them), just like they are in the UK or Japan; it'd be a sure way to drop the crime rate. It DOES work, as crimerates in those countries show.
It is true that enforcing gun control would be difficult, you'd probably have to phase it in or something. The benefits would be huge, though, and the "but any criminal could get a gun regardless" excuse just doesn't hold up, or else you'd have a lot more gun crime in nations which ban handguns.
I know it won't happen because of how powerful the NRA is, but seriously, getting rid of handguns would almost certainly also drop police violence, because as has been pointed out, police probably do use their guns so often in this country in part because they expect people to be armed.
Quote:These people apparently forget that this country was founded on rioting. Boston Tea Party anyone? Funny how no one has the same attitude about that. When White people riot, it's for a Purpose. When Black people riot, the Fox News of the world love to paint them as Thugs. It's White supremacy underneath the surface, and it doesn't take a whole lot of IQ points to see.
Good point. And on that note:
![[Image: 2014-02-11_gang_signs-4893cdc2.gif]](http://www.kchronicles.com/comics/2014-02-11_gang_signs-4893cdc2.gif)
It's very true, isn't it.
Quote: Honestly, as far as politics go, I posit that if a person reaches a certain level of emotional intelligence, there's hardly a debate on certain issues. Welfare programs, housing for the poor, etc. Anyone with proper empathic sense can and should see that reducing the misery of the state's citizens, is more important than getting "gouged" by taxes or whatever. Look, the state provides you with policemen, roads, phone lines, transportation. If you don't want to pay into the state for the welfare of its people, then get the fuck out. Go to a libertarian paradise like Somalia, see how well you thrive you fucking dipshit.
I wonder if or when America will again have two political parties who actually believe in governing, as we once did... because currently we certainly don't, there are the (mostly very centrist) Democrats, and then the crazies on the right who want to burn everything down. The actual left is small.
It's nice to see you acknowledge the democrat's failure as a party here. Everything you said is true. The democrats exist entirely to stem the tide of idiocy coming from the right. It seems to be their sole goal in life at this point, and it would sure be nice to see some alternatives.
I'd love to see a variety of parties that actually stand a chance against these two massive ones at some point. I'm not sure what it'd take, especially since any attempt for an alternative "further left" party to actually get off the ground is immediately squashed with "but it'll split the vote and the crazies will WIN" fears, and those fears always win, even if the fear actually is legitimate, it's the fear itself that's holding back the creation of new parties.