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

[Elegiac]

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

Mhm, which is exactly why there is such a resistance to immigration from these countries.

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 better than nothing" is an assumption on your part since, as I said, the costs of policing clearly outweigh the benefit.

Maybe y'all should spend some energy trying to figure out a way to solve crimes that doesn't involve brutalizing minorities? Just a thought.

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

The costs I was referring to were those borne by victims of police brutality, hun.

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

Law enforcement is a required service, yes. Not in the form of police departments.

Them helping you out is irrelevant since we've already established you live in a privileged position.

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.

You asked "who I'd call if my house was getting burned down". The answer is the fire department.

Now if you want to talk about investigation and justice, that's another matter. But that can be better solved than by throwing people in a cage or shooting them.

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

That's nice, but many do; and the point being that we need to conduct a fundamental reevaluation of our attitudes towards justice and law enforcement.

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?

Mmm.

No, I don't. Because police as they exist are currently exist to service the ruling class and protest their interests. And that also ignores the fact that "training and militarisation" doesn't cover the culture that breeds racism.

[Ripster42]

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.

So you don't see a ruling getting rid of the "clearly established precedent" bit and substituting a different standard like "reasonable person would believe" or similar is likely either, or am I reading too much into your response?

[Kasierith]

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.

Where I come from, I was at a disadvantage due to having central Asian features and different hair and eyes making me stick out from others.

Where I am now. I have an advantage due to skin color.

That I have an advantage in one place and a disadvantage in others, with corresponding people with disadvantages and advantages, doesnt change that within the scope of the United States there are disadvantages to being black that should be addressed.

[Fargus]

Mhm, which is exactly why there is such a resistance to immigration from these countries.

Elaborate.

"It's better than nothing" is an assumption on your part since, as I said, the costs of policing clearly outweigh the benefit.

Which is also an assumption on your part. Do you have any real-world examples of a country where there is actually no police force who are doing better than those who have one?

Maybe y'all should spend some energy trying to figure out a way to solve crimes that doesn't involve brutalizing minorities? Just a thought.

Except the fact there are many parts of the world where the police actually do their job without abusing their power. Why can't that happen in the US?

Law enforcement is a required service, yes. Not in the form of police departments.

Then come up with a better alternative.

Them helping you out is irrelevant since we've already established you live in a privileged position.

It's only irrelevant because it undermines your "police are useless most of the time" argument. Fact remains is that they still help people, whether they're US-based or not.

You asked "who I'd call if my house was getting burned down". The answer is the fire department.

Emergency services will always contact the police in those situations whether you request them or not. Same with major car accidents... sure, you can only call the ambulance but they will always dispatch the police.

That's nice, but many do; and the point being that we need to conduct a fundamental reevaluation of our attitudes towards justice and law enforcement.

Mhm. Then what is your alternative?

Mmm.

No, I don't. Because police as they exist are currently exist to service the ruling class and protest their interests.

Then please explain to me why some police bother to help homeless people? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Realistically, the ruling class... I'm talking billionaires... will hire their own goons. They're not going to rely on poorly-trained high school dropouts with the IQ of a brick. No, that'd actually endanger them. They'd pay good money for say, ex-mercs, former soldiers.

IMO I think disbanding/removing the police force entirely is an insane idea. Even if you do that - and rely on a neighbourhood watch - there's still going to be racist/authoritative fucks. A well-trained police force who are compassionate and professional is more good than bad. The problem stems from your shitty system, but not having a police force will just ensure chaos.

[Mayhem]

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

Yeah, but there are very few jobs where people are actually working against you being successful at your job.

Like, if you're a software engineer, there's no one around deliberately hiding bugs from you.

Please don't treat solving crimes like any other job, it's not.

2012 Crime clearance rates by countries:
Theft offenses 7% (Sweden)
Theft offenses 17% (Norway)
Theft offenses 28% (Germany)
Theft offenses 18% (England & Wales)

Offenses against life and health 15% (Sweden)
Offenses against life and health 57% (Norway)
Offenses against life and health 88% (Germany)
Offenses against life and health 41% (England & Wales)

Now one might come to the conclusion that Swedens police are really bad, but the number of reported offenses per 1000 is highest in Sweden
147 (Sweden)
55 (Norway)
73 (Germany)
64 (England & Wales)

All those countries have comparable crime rates, so the numbers differ for a number of reasons, it might be due to how time-consuming it is for victims to even report a crime or how internal reporting by the police is done.
https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/ho...countries.html

Anyway, theft is typically pretty hard to solve because in most cases it's one word against the other or with little to no evidence.

[Kasierith]

So you don't see a ruling getting rid of the "clearly established precedent" bit and substituting a different standard like "reasonable person would believe" or similar is likely either, or am I reading too much into your response?

A narrow ruling like that, yes. As I mentioned above, individual cases could impact parts of qualified immunity and narrow its scope. With qualified immunity there are three things to keep in mind.

First, it has three distinct major components (plenty of smaller implications but these are the three)
1. An officer operating in an official capacity cannot be sued personally, rather suits are directed at the department authorizing his actions even if tacitly
2. Novel civil claims, ie claims that haven't been tried before, are massively mitigated.
3. There is a shift in the burden of proof from 51 49 as in other civil cases to a higher burden of evidence

Second, every state and federal operates qualified immunity differently. There are major landmark cases, but every state and federal court has irs own policies, procedures, and smaller scale precedent setting cases. So there are a lot of moving targets all over the place and a narrow ruling can very well come down to "Kansas implemented X procedure poorly and qualified immunity as they practiced it doesn't fall in line with scotus precede t" which does little for the rest of the country.

Third, while it is expressed in various ways, the core principle is that a law enforcement officer is unable to perform their legal function if they are paralyzed by the fear of a lawsuit even when they are operating fully in good faith. This is a very, very broad mandate, and is something that is needed to function, else even turning your lights and siren on comes with the risk of a lawsuit. It is a necessary but very broad mandate, defined by its necessity rather than the writ of law, meaning that the supreme court cannot readily scrap the whole thing. It can only be further defined in such a way that the balance shifts from being overwhelmingly in favor of law enforcement, to balancing the interests of LEOs and the public.

[Mayhem]

It's only irrelevant because it undermines your "police are useless most of the time" argument. Fact remains is that they still help people, whether they're US-based or not.

That is not contradicting the statement that most of the time they are useless. If the numbers back it up, then most of the time THEY ARE USELESS. Now that does not mean all police are useless and that law enforcement has no place in this world because that would be nice but also not true, it means their training is shite and people probably don't trust them enough to either help with solving or worst of all even report a crime.

[Zeth Hawkins]

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?

Odd to post the definition of a word and tell others to stop arguing semantics.

Nice to know based on your unsourced definition, I am not privileged. I have not had a special right, special advantage, or special immunity granted particularly to me, and I do not belong to any groups that have been granted such things.

Well, I do admittedly have a few work privileges. Specific allowances from my superiors to do certain things that other personnel may not.

And I do have the privilege of my parents giving me a key, and open access, to their house, but these are not the types of privileges to which you are referring. If they are, then everyone is privileged.

[Masark]

Third, while it is expressed in various ways, the core principle is that a law enforcement officer is unable to perform their legal function if they are paralyzed by the fear of a lawsuit even when they are operating fully in good faith. This is a very, very broad mandate, and is something that is needed to function, else even turning your lights and siren on comes with the risk of a lawsuit. It is a necessary but very broad mandate, defined by its necessity rather than the writ of law, meaning that the supreme court cannot readily scrap the whole thing. It can only be further defined in such a way that the balance shifts from being overwhelmingly in favor of law enforcement, to balancing the interests of LEOs and the public.

Curious how American law enforcement got along without such a vitally needed thing for over a century.

"Qualified immunity" was only invented in 1967, conveniently when certain police forces tried to keep enforcing racist laws that had already been found unconstitutional.

[Kasierith]

Curious how American law enforcement got along without such a vitally needed thing for over a century.

"Qualified immunity" was only invented in 1967, conveniently when certain police forces tried to keep enforcing racist laws that had already been found unconstitutional.

Iirc prior to that there were protections in place for government officials, just not as expansive and not focused on civil suits. But ya Pierson v ray served as a convenient catalyst to update the federal system, no doubt about it.

[Mayhem]

Third, while it is expressed in various ways, the core principle is that a law enforcement officer is unable to perform their legal function if they are paralyzed by the fear of a lawsuit even when they are operating fully in good faith. This is a very, very broad mandate, and is something that is needed to function, else even turning your lights and siren on comes with the risk of a lawsuit. It is a necessary but very broad mandate, defined by its necessity rather than the writ of law, meaning that the supreme court cannot readily scrap the whole thing. It can only be further defined in such a way that the balance shifts from being overwhelmingly in favor of law enforcement, to balancing the interests of LEOs and the public.

Can you cite comparable laws or actually the absence of laws in other countries? I mean, according to you police forces are only able to work if they don't have to fear the law.

Which is a bit ridiculous in itself but maybe the wording is just odd.

[Katie N]

Can you cite comparable laws or actually the absence of laws in other countries? I mean, according to you police forces are only able to work if they don't have to fear the law.

Which is a bit ridiculous in itself but maybe the wording is just odd.

Wtf is this? How do you cite absence of laws?

[Kasierith]

Can you cite comparable laws or actually the absence of laws in other countries? I mean, according to you police forces are only able to work if they don't have to fear the law.

Which is a bit ridiculous in itself but maybe the wording is just odd.

According to the supreme court. It was and remains the justification provided in these cases in the majority decisions by the court. I believe in other countries the police are protected by mechanisms similar to bystander protection rules, but I am not as familiar with the laws of other countries. My personal opinion is that while these concerns are valid, they could be succinctly covered by laws that are not so expansive and open to interpretation allowing for gross misconduct. Ie qualified immunity is massive overkill for its (publicly) intended purpose.

[Mayhem]

Wtf is this? How do you cite absence of laws?

The first part of the sentence just vanished from your memory while reading? If certain laws don't apply to people then I'd say that's an absence of laws citeable by that one law that grants immunity.

[Masark]

You know how we were talking about how there isn't a song titled "Fuck The Fire Department"?

Someone might just write one if these chucklefucks keep it up.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/06/09/lyons...rked-backlash/

[Kasierith]

You know how we were talking about how there isn't a song titled "Fuck The Fire Department"?

Someone might just write one if these chucklefucks keep it up.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/06/09/lyons...rked-backlash/

I believe the Buffalo fire department expressed similar sentiments, and they have a long history of... questionable behavior to collaborate how awful they are as well.

[Mayhem]

According to the supreme court. It was and remains the justification provided in these cases in the majority decisions by the court. I believe in other countries the police are protected by mechanisms similar to bystander protection rules, but I am not as familiar with the laws of other countries. My personal opinion is that while these concerns are valid, they could be succinctly covered by laws that are not so expansive and open to interpretation allowing for gross misconduct. Ie qualified immunity is massive overkill for its (publicly) intended purpose.

As far as I can find anything on good samaritan laws they encourage help while granting some protections against prosecution for the help provided. Anyway, what boggles my mind is that laws in the US can be different in each jurisdiction which makes everything stupidly complicated.

[Draco-Onis]

Nice to know based on your unsourced definition, I am not privileged. I have not had a special right, special advantage, or special immunity granted particularly to me, and I do not belong to any groups that have been granted such things.

That's a laughable response your race, gender, location, genetics, sexual orientation, wealth based on your parents all grant you special advantages, immunity or impact you in the negative if they are bad and you have no control over that.

[gtempest]

That's a laughable response your race, gender, location, genetics, sexual orientation, wealth based on your parents all grant you special advantages, immunity or impact you in the negative if they are bad and you have no control over that.

People dont like to accept that somewhere in the world there are people that dont enjoy the privileges they take for granted, they almost act like some people having it doesnt make it a privilege or that they dont deserve it.
Those people dont realise they are part of the systemic problem due to the fact they cant even recognise some of the privilege they enjoy through sanitation, better policing,democratic votes or whatever.
Its tragic really that its seen as a negative that we have to deny exists rather than just educate people and try to one day make these advantages a fundamental right for the whole human race.

Fargus must live in some utopian society, as here in the UK there is a fairly large group of people who live on the street with poor access to sanitation, clean water and fresh food. I am privileged to not have to endure their daily struggles and when they try to pull themselves up out of the gutter, their poor hygeine, lack of a permanent address etc works against them.

[Machismo]

Odd to post the definition of a word and tell others to stop arguing semantics.

Nice to know based on your unsourced definition, I am not privileged. I have not had a special right, special advantage, or special immunity granted particularly to me, and I do not belong to any groups that have been granted such things.

Well, I do admittedly have a few work privileges. Specific allowances from my superiors to do certain things that other personnel may not.

And I do have the privilege of my parents giving me a key, and open access, to their house, but these are not the types of privileges to which you are referring. If they are, then everyone is privileged.

I guess that would depend on what country, city, area you live in. In the United States, that privilege can be wealth, skin color, age, physical attractiveness, gender, height, weight, or simply what family you belong to.

Now, some of those things you can change, but others you cannot.

To try and ignore that such things exist, is rather foolish.