Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Kasierith]

Thought SCOTUS overturning prior SCOTUS rulings is just incredibly uncommon, not impossible.

Overwhelmingly uncommon, yes. But the scotus is ruling on a specific case. The most they'll say is that the officers can be charged in this particular situation because the aforementioned protections do not apply for X reason. Keep in mind that qualified immunity was built up from a wide spectrum of cases, not a singular one that can be dismissed on a single axis.

[Elegiac]

If a standard service is a privilege, that means I am getting special treatment. I am not getting special treatment with what I described, ergo, it's not a privilege. Context would only matter were I a US citizen and getting a higher standard of treatment than the norm.

Except it isn't "standard" in most of the world, and largely exists where you live and not elsewhere because of an exploitative economic system that every western country continues to be complicit in.

[Egomaniac]

If a standard service is a privilege, that means I am getting special treatment. I am not getting special treatment with what I described, ergo, it's not a privilege. Context would only matter were I a US citizen and getting a higher standard of treatment than the norm.

The context is that you are being compared to an American citizen...

[Fargus]

Uh huh. And living in a country where human rights are recognized and protected is a privilege. You're getting the point.

No it's not. It's a fundamental right. Is modern sanitation a privilege too? What is considered a privilege differs from country to country... a proper sanitation system would be so in a shanty town in Bangladesh... but in New Zealand? Certainly not.

1) Not the cops; they only 'solve' around 19% of crimes and their purpose is to protect private property, not personal property.

How many crimes are solved without their intervention?

2) Also not the cops, they have a tendency to escalate situations and aren't obligated to stop crimes in progress anyway.

Yet most people would still call them if there was say, a road rage incident where someone's threatening physical harm.

3) The fire department.

They don't have the authority to arrest and charge the arsonist.

- - - Updated - - -

The context is that you are being compared to an American citizen...

Which is a completely pointless context to begin with.

[Egomaniac]

Which is a completely pointless context to begin with.

All she is saying is that, compared to minorities in America, you have the privilege of not dealing with systemic racism.

Just like having running water is a privilege you have that some 3rd world countries do not.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

They used his death and arranged his funeral for a political stunt, they couldn't give two shits about george flyod.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ_D9RUX...jpg&name=small

And you tried the same thing here with the cop who got shot all be it on a smaller scale.

You want to promote your own ideas and goals without caring about the dead just as much as them.

[Elegiac]

No it's not. It's a fundamental right. Is modern sanitation a privilege too? What is considered a privilege differs from country to country... a proper sanitation system would be so in a shanty town in Bangladesh... but in New Zealand? Certainly not.

Yes, modern sanitation is in fact a privilege. Developed countries have had the advantage of being buttressed by the exploitation of the rest of the world, hence their relative head start in that department.

How many crimes are solved without their intervention?

I struggle to think of another job where I wouldn't be terminated for being that bad at it.

Yet most people would still call them if there was say, a road rage incident where someone's threatening physical harm.

Which, again, a cop rarely helps with. What you're looking for is a mediation or intervention officer.

They don't have the authority to arrest and charge the arsonist.

I'm not sure why that would be important since arsonists do not tend to stick around. And again; law enforcement =/= cops. There are other methods, such as restorative justice.

[Fargus]

Except it isn't "standard" in most of the world, and largely exists where you live and not elsewhere because of an exploitative economic system that every western country continues to be complicit in.

My country is not "most of the world". Your point? Neither is yours.

Do you have clean, running water? Lots of parts of the world don't have that - would you consider that fundamental a privilege, or normal because your country is stable/prosperous enough to have such a thing?

[Edge-]

If a standard service is a privilege, that means I am getting special treatment.

That's literally the point. That it's standard and not something you have to think or worry about while others do, is a privilege.

It's not any attempt to shame you in any way, shape, or form. It's not an attack. It's not offensive. It's a way to try to share another perspective with you that, due to your privilege, you may not have really been exposed to. That's not a bad thing.

[Elegiac]

My country is not "most of the world". Your point? Neither is yours.

Exactly. The point being that I acknowledge the position of privilege that puts me in.

Do you have clean, running water? Lots of parts of the world don't have that - would you consider that fundamental a privilege, or normal because your country is stable/prosperous enough to have such a thing?

Yes, I do consider access to potable water a privilege, because I try to minimize my levels of caucasity.

[Fargus]

Yes, modern sanitation is in fact a privilege. Developed countries have had the advantage of being buttressed by the exploitation of the rest of the world, hence their relative head start in that department.

Not in my country it isn't. People don't give it a second thought... even if you're dirt poor. See, the point you're missing here: it's all relative.

I struggle to think of another job where I wouldn't be terminated for being that bad at it.

Do you have that statistic or not?

Which, again, a cop rarely helps with. What you're looking for is a mediation or intervention officer.

Yet it's the police department that dispatches someone to quell the situation, either with a chat or an arrest. I'm happy I have the opportunity to call the police if my life is threatened like that.

I'm not sure why that would be important since arsonists do not tend to stick around. And again; law enforcement =/= cops. There are other methods, such as restorative justice.

What if there's CCTV footage? What if the arsonist's identity is known via witnesses? The fire department doesn't enforce the law... and arsonists have been caught causing bushfires previously, as an example.

Expand on these other methods... I'd like to hear about them.

[Egomaniac]

Not in my country it isn't. People don't give it a second thought... even if you're dirt poor. See, the point you're missing here: it's all relative.

Yeah...that's why we're not comparing it to people in your country. In your country you have privileges that people in other countries do not have.

[Elegiac]

Not in my country it isn't. People don't give it a second thought... even if you're dirt poor. See, the point you're missing here: it's all relative.

Yes, and?

You living in a society where that is a standard is a privilege. It being relative is irrelevant because privilege requires a disparity by definition.

Christ and Allah.

Do you have that statistic or not?

No, because it's not relevant. If the justification for police is "they solve crime", that's kinda defeated by the fact that a) they are quite bad at it, and b) it comes with an associated cost of state endorsed violence and oppression.

It's relative gain versus cost, hun. And the police are wanting in that department.

Yet it's the police department that dispatches someone to quell the situation, either with a chat or an arrest. I'm happy I have the opportunity to call the police if my life is threatened like that.

Are you seriously countering "cops don't help with volatile situations" with "well the current policy is that they are charged with dealing with them"?

Yes, we know. That's theproblem.

What if there's CCTV footage? What if the arsonist's identity is known via witnesses? The fire department doesn't enforce the law... and arsonists have been caught causing bushfires previously, as an example.

There's a big difference between investigating the aftermath of a crime and stopping it from being permitted. Keep on moving those goalposts though.

Expand on these other methods... I'd like to hear about them.

Six Ideas for a Cop-Free World.

[Fargus]

Yeah...that's why we're not comparing it to people in your country. In your country you have privileges that people in other countries do not have.

Human rights would be the better term.

[Egomaniac]

Human rights would be the better term.

Privilege is a fine term.

Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

Having 24/7 access to running water is an advantage that you have that people in other countries do not.
Human Rights are an advantage that some people have that others do not.
Not having to deal with systemic racism is an advantage

Now can we stop arguing semantics?

[Elegiac]

Privilege is a fine term.

Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

Having 24/7 access to running water is an advantage that you have that people in other countries do not.
Human Rights are an advantage that some people have that others do not.
Not having to deal with systemic racism is an advantage

Now can we stop arguing semantics?

I seriously do not understand the defensiveness some people exhibit at the slightest suggestion that they have it better than someone else.

...Lol jk I totally get it.

[Ripster42]

Overwhelmingly uncommon, yes. But the scotus is ruling on a specific case. The most they'll say is that the officers can be charged in this particular situation because the aforementioned protections do not apply for X reason. Keep in mind that qualified immunity was built up from a wide spectrum of cases, not a singular one that can be dismissed on a single axis.

It's my understanding that appeals judges (I'm including SCOTUS here) try to limit the scope of their rulings, but it's hard for me to imagine that it would really be impossible for SCOTUS to say, "We were wrong, qualified immunity doesn't exist, our constitution already provides a justice system that gives people a fair trial, presided over by one branch of our government, with prosecutorial discretion in the hands of another." I would think that SCOTUS would want to look after the "appearance of justice" as a part of their constitutional duty.

I understand why it'd be really hard for a lower court to say anything like that, but the reading of qualified immunity that requires a clearly established precedent and effectively requiring a challenge all the way to the supreme court to establish any precedent leads to an irresolvable conundrum in my opinion. In my mind, it essentially leads to a situation where SCOTUS, in the interests of justice, should be reviewing all police misconduct claims, a clearly nonsense notion.

[Fargus]

Yes, and?

You living in a society where that is a standard is a privilege. It being relative is irrelevant because privilege requires a disparity by definition.

Yet there's no disparity here. Bring the downtrodden here and they'd enjoy these fundamental rights too.

No, because it's not relevant. If the justification for police is "they solve crime", that's kinda defeated by the fact that a) they are quite bad at it, and b) it comes with an associated cost of state endorsed violence and oppression.

You're dodging the question. Even with a low strike-rate, it's still better than nothing. One of my best friends were assaulted outside a city nightclub - without the police's involvement in the matter, there would have never been charges laid nor any compensation. There are many cases like that. Who is going to investigate and charge otherwise?

It's relative gain versus cost, hun. And the police are wanting in that department.

The cost being chaos and no one to call when you actually need their services. Sounds like a good idea.

Are you seriously countering "cops don't help with volatile situations" with "well the current policy is that they are charged with dealing with them"?

Yes, we know. That's theproblem.

No, I am saying they're still a required service and have helped me out of a jam a few times.

There's a big difference between investigating the aftermath of a crime and stopping it from being permitted. Keep on moving those goalposts though.

The point is that the fire department can't arrest people or conduct searches or refer charges to a prosecutor. I'm not moving goalposts, I am saying that the police is required if there's an arson attack, not just the fire department.

Six Ideas for a Cop-Free World.

A lot of those points don't even warrant complete elimination of the police. Especially point 2 and 6.

The major problem with your police force is that they wield too much power, are poorly trained and by current standards, let pretty much anyone in. Do you at least concede that with proper training, psychological testing, less militarisation, etc that it would be acceptable if they were competent and not psychotic?

[Kasierith]

It's my understanding that appeals judges (I'm including SCOTUS here) try to limit the scope of their rulings, but it's hard for me to imagine that it would really be impossible for SCOTUS to say, "We were wrong, qualified immunity doesn't exist, our constitution already provides a justice system that gives people a fair trial, presided over by one branch of our government, with prosecutorial discretion in the hands of another." I would think that SCOTUS would want to look after the "appearance of justice" as a part of their constitutional duty.

I understand why it'd be really hard for a lower court to say anything like that, but the reading of qualified immunity that suggests an irresolvable conundrum of requiring clearly established precedent and effectively requiring a challenge all the way to the supreme court to establish any precedent. In my mind, it essentially leads to a situation where SCOTUS, in the interests of justice, should be reviewing all police misconduct claims, a clearly nonsense notion.

It would be within the technical realm of possibility, but a singular ruling so broad and disconnected with a singular case on hand hasn't been done before. That is before you consider that the current justices are focused on very narrow rulings. The gop didn't push Kavanaugh strictly over his thoughts on the president's authority. They pushed him because he overwhelmingly favors razor thin judgments that keep the authority in the Republican dominated lower courts stronger.

[Fargus]

Privilege is a fine term.

Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

Having 24/7 access to running water is an advantage that you have that people in other countries do not.
Human Rights are an advantage that some people have that others do not.
Not having to deal with systemic racism is an advantage

Now can we stop arguing semantics?

Only if you're using the entire global population as one. In many countries that's not even an advantage, it's akin to getting coffee every morning from the local cafe.