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

[Rozz]

There isn't a point in arguing with people that see getting fired as a true consequence for taking a life. They can't and don't want to see the larger ramifications, because they don't care and will assume it's made up to hurt the people that look like their family.

Then they wonder why there are protests and opportunists that instigate riots. Many people are done talking to a wall. The distrust and hate towards police are a reflection of decades of failures that end in nothing but a damaged community and deeper hatred towards police.

The damage is already done, so every situation is symbolic. "Will they change? Will they keep killing with impunity?"

When you see a cop's "accident" escalate to national attention and they recieve a punishment you find "harsh", remember they're in that hot seat because their profession has a long standing history of passing off blame until it lands in an 'expendable' lap. You should be asking for reform too, for the good cops you allegedly care about.

[Coniferous]

There isn't a point in arguing with people that see getting fired as a true consequence for taking a life. They can't and don't want to see the larger ramifications, because they don't care and will assume it's made up to hurt the people that look like their family.

Then they wonder why there are protests and opportunists that instigate riots. Many people are done talking to a wall. The distrust and hate towards police are a reflection of decades of failures that end in nothing but a damaged community and deeper hatred towards police.

What are the larger ramifications?

[D3thray]

"Criminal negligence leading to homicide".

Stop calling that a "mistake" or "accident". Those words don't apply.

Also, I am "going after civil forfeiture". But police are the central problem, as there's a wide range of things going on that police culture and policy is all at the center of. Police are the root problem when it comes to civil forfeiture. Same with police brutality. Same with "thin blue line" corruption. Same with corrupt unions protecting officers over the profession. And so on. There's a single central cause of all these problems; they are all directly related and emerge from the same causes.

What do you see as the cause? State monopoly on violence? Or maybe it’s just human nature that power and authority corrupt. I’m just wondering exactly what features of a policing system need to be changed to prevent abuse. Or is it the entire system itself? Genuine question.

[Endus]

You've never disagreed with a verdict?

1> I can explain why I agree or disagree with a verdict. I'm not just gonna say "it's my opinion, and that means I don't need to justify it", which is what you're trying to pull.
2> I'm more likely to disagree with a "not guilty" verdict by virtue of how the burden of proof works in the first place, which is a concept so obvious I shouldn't even have to explain it, but here we are.

[Rozz]

What are the larger ramifications?

Actually I'd be curious to see what you think they are first.

Tell me the potential consequences of continued police killings (accidental or not) without court interference. Do you not think there are any? That's okay, I wouldn't be surprised.

[D3thray]

We've been over this - that's your opinion, I disagree. It was a mistake.

The way I see it, as soon as you attempt to take someone into custody and while they are apprehended, you are responsible for their well-being. That’s why Chauvin and the McMichaels are guilty. That’s why this woman is guilty. Mistakes and negligence are the same in this arena.

[Coniferous]

1> I can explain why I agree or disagree with a verdict. I'm not just gonna say "it's my opinion, and that means I don't need to justify it", which is what you're trying to pull.
2> I'm more likely to disagree with a "not guilty" verdict by virtue of how the burden of proof works in the first place, which is a concept so obvious I shouldn't even have to explain it, but here we are.

I have explained, in detail, earlier in the thread. To sum up:

There are two reasons to put someone in jail:

1. They are too dangerous to be allowed into society.
2. Their punishment acts as a deterrent that prevents similar events occurring in the future.

With regards to 1, I think it's clear that she's not dangerous if she's not a cop. Hell, take away her right to have firearms as a private citizen, that's fine.
With regards to 2, I think the punishment she received is already a hell of deterrent. Losing the job you've held for 20 years and having to start over in another industry is pretty tough. No cop is going to say, "Well she only got fired so who cares I'm going to be careless with my weapon!"

[Endus]

When you see a cop's "accident" escalate to national attention and they recieve a punishment you find "harsh", remember they're in that hot seat because their profession has a long standing history of passing off blame until it lands in an 'expendable' lap. You should be asking for reform too, for the good cops you allegedly care about.

That's the worst part; I'm not even "anti-cop". I'm anti-corruption.

Cops getting free passes on crimes like this is what corruption looks like. Lower standards for cops is corruption. The "thin blue line" defending colleagues is corruption. DAs hesitating to press charges against a PD they need to cooperate with is corruption. All of these things are corruption, not policing.

That corruption has become so standard and commonplace that it's seen as just normal policing is a massive frickin' problem.

What do you see as the cause? State monopoly on violence? Or maybe it’s just human nature that power and authority corrupt. I’m just wondering exactly what features of a policing system need to be changed to prevent abuse. Or is it the entire system itself? Genuine question.

The "state monopoly on violence" is an obvious problem, because the State is not a neutral arbiter. The State has created a system in which there are winners and losers, and the State's monopoly on violence acts to protect that status quo inherently; defending the "winners" and further subjugating and oppressing the "losers". The USA is a crystal clear example of this, with the vast majority of the abuses of the police being aimed at ethnic minority groups and those in poverty, while the wealthy face slaps on the wrists if any consequences at all. Wage theft, for instance, vastly outpaces robbery in terms of dollars stolen, but how many CEOs were locked up for wage theft compared to poor people resorting to robbery? The "monopoly on violence" is a tool of the oppressor.

It isn't "human nature" that authority or power corrupt. It's that bad people made the rules and ensured there were little in the way of checks and balances against their predations, while ensuring that others couldn't challenge them properly. Just as a really fuckin' simple point; police should be held to higher standards than the average citizen, and should be fired for infringements on their ethical duties, even if it's a question of "maybe they did it, maybe not", on the principle that the PD can't take the risk that "maybe they did it". The police should be self-regulating, by providing greater scrutiny of their own membership than the general public, and anyone found breaking policy let alone the law should be drummed out and given no support, not by their colleagues, not by their leadership, and not by their union. That means shit as simple as "harassed a citizen without real cause", or "was rude and unprofessional in several encounters"; we're not talking about crimes here yet. Actual crimes should, obviously, face even less protection or defense.

If your police force sees a need to protect its members from the public, to band together, you're already in the wrong.

[Coniferous]

Actually I'd be curious to see what you think they are first.

Tell me the potential consequences of continued police killings (accidental or not) without court interference. Do you not think there are any? That's okay, I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not defending Chauvin and McMichaels, both clearly were in the wrong. And earlier in the thread I said that I agreed Potter should have been put on trial, but I disagreed with the verdict, so I'm not saying there should be no court interference. Overall I think the main point of disagreement is whether police should be held to a higher or lower standard of behavior than common citizens. I am saying that police should be held to a lower standard by nature of the business they are in - to take a more extreme example, a heart surgeon is more likely to kill someone accidentally than your average joe. The reason for this is that some mistakes are inevitable, and I think if we make standards too high we won't have an effective police force because no one would want to be a cop.

I think the Potter case is a judgement call and I come down on the side of mercy, because I honestly doubt that this cop who worked on the force for 20 years, and was a training officer based on a good record, had any kind of bad intention towards the victim - particularly given her reaction on video to the outcome. I just don't see any benefit in putting her in jail.

[Endus]

I have explained, in detail, earlier in the thread. To sum up:

There are two reasons to put someone in jail:

1. They are too dangerous to be allowed into society.
2. Their punishment acts as a deterrent that prevents similar events occurring in the future.

3. To provide a sense of punishment for wrongdoing that's important not just to the convicted, but to society at large feeling that justice has been served.

Hell, your #2 isn't even a factor; study after study has proven that there is no deterrence effect to harsher sentencing; What does matter is that you will be caught and sentenced appropriately. Your position on this is counterfactual. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hr...deterrence.pdf

With regards to 1, I think it's clear that she's not dangerous if she's not a cop. Hell, take away her right to have firearms as a private citizen, that's fine.

She literally just killed a dude. She clearly presents a danger.

With regards to 2, I think the punishment she received is already a hell of deterrent. Losing the job you've held for 20 years and having to start over in another industry is pretty tough. No cop is going to say, "Well she only got fired so who cares I'm going to be careless with my weapon!"

It's not a legal punishment at all. Her being fired has fuck-all to do with her criminal charges. That's not a sentencing, and you don't get a pass on a crime because you got fired for committing it.

If I embezzle a couple hundred thousand off my boss, and he finds out and fires me, that's enough punishment surely? You don't need to charge me with the theft, right? That's your argument, isn't it?

[Rozz]

That's the worst part; I'm not even "anti-cop". I'm anti-corruption.

Cops getting free passes on crimes like this is what corruption looks like. Lower standards for cops is corruption. The "thin blue line" defending colleagues is corruption. DAs hesitating to press charges against a PD they need to cooperate with is corruption. All of these things are corruption, not policing.

Unfortunately plenty enough people don't see it that way or see those things as a romanticized bonus.

There are plenty of cops that do their best and want to help, but actively get their careers threatened or ruined because of their corrupt peers. Same problem in the military.

I'm of the mind that police should also be held to the court of law when obstructing investigations due to severe negligence. It's disturbing how many cases you hear about missing or murdered people where the local police literally did nothing until pressured by the community or a superior. Then they wonder why people don't bother reporting things as much anymore.

[Huehuecoyotl]

If I embezzle a couple hundred thousand off my boss, and he finds out and fires me, that's enough punishment surely? You don't need to charge me with the theft, right? That's your argument, isn't it?

That depends. Are you a cop? Because if you are, that's fine with him.

Seriously though, can we not just respond to every one of his posts with the sealion cartoon at this point? For all the good coming from "discussing" things with him, we might as well.

[Coniferous]

Lots of meat on the bone here.

3. To provide a sense of punishment for wrongdoing that's important not just to the convicted, but to society at large feeling that justice has been served.

I've never been a believer in this, I view this as the "bloodthirstiness" argument. Many other society has much less severe feelings about justice and they operate fine.

Hell, your #2 isn't even a factor; study after study has proven that there is no deterrence effect to harsher sentencing; What does matter is that you will be caught and sentenced appropriately. Your position on this is counterfactual. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hr...deterrence.pdf

That's literally my point. A harsher punishment won't do anything to add to the deterrence. Being fired is enough.

She literally just killed a dude. She clearly presents a danger.

So this 50 year old woman with no criminal record prior to this event is a danger even if you take away her job and her right to have a gun? Why?

It's not a legal punishment at all. Her being fired has fuck-all to do with her criminal charges. That's not a sentencing, and you don't get a pass on a crime because you got fired for committing it.

It's a punishment. Whether it's "legal" or not doesn't matter to me. Would you feel better if there was a law that said she legally had to be fired for this? Then it would be a "legal" punishment.

If I embezzle a couple hundred thousand off my boss, and he finds out and fires me, that's enough punishment surely? You don't need to charge me with the theft, right? That's your argument, isn't it?

You know the obvious difference here is that you don't embezzle a couple hundred thousand accidentally.

[D3thray]

That's the worst part; I'm not even "anti-cop". I'm anti-corruption.

Cops getting free passes on crimes like this is what corruption looks like. Lower standards for cops is corruption. The "thin blue line" defending colleagues is corruption. DAs hesitating to press charges against a PD they need to cooperate with is corruption. All of these things are corruption, not policing.

That corruption has become so standard and commonplace that it's seen as just normal policing is a massive frickin' problem.



The "state monopoly on violence" is an obvious problem, because the State is not a neutral arbiter. The State has created a system in which there are winners and losers, and the State's monopoly on violence acts to protect that status quo inhernetly; defending the "winners" and further subjugating and oppressing the "losers". The USA is a crystal clear example of this, with the vast majority of the abuses of the police being aimed at ethnic minority groups and those in poverty, while the wealthy face slaps on the wrists if any consequences at all. Wage theft, for instance, vastly outpaces robbery in terms of dollars stolen, but how many CEOs were locked up for wage theft compared to poor people resorting to robbery? The "monopoly on violence" is a tool of the oppressor.

It isn't "human nature" that authority or power corrupt. It's that bad people made the rules and ensured there were little in the way of checks and balances against their predations, while ensuring that others couldn't challenge them properly. Just as a really fuckin' simple point; police should be held to higher standards than the average citizen, and should be fired for infringements on their ethical duties, even if it's a question of "maybe they did it, maybe not", on the principle that the PD can't take the risk that "maybe they did it". The police should be self-regulating, by providing greater scrutiny of their own membership than the general public, and anyone found breaking policy let alone the law should be drummed out and given no support, not by their colleagues, not by their leadership, and not by their union. That means shit as simple as "harassed a citizen without real cause", or "was rude and unprofessional in several encounters"; we're not talking about crimes here yet. Actual crimes should, obviously, face even less protection or defense.

If your police force sees a need to protect its members from the public, to band together, you're already in the wrong.

I don’t go as far as accusation or hearsay being grounds for individual disciplinary action but I agree the bar for responsibility is and should be higher for police. The same with any profession in which the public vests it’s trust; doctors, nurses, pharmacists, teachers, lawyers, politicians and government in general and many others. There are some oversight boards and groups that provide standards for accountability but we’ve largely been relying on tort rather than criminal prosecution for the public to provide direct accountability. And there’s always the question of who oversees the oversight boards. At the end of the day there’s only so many layers of oversight which are practical to add and someone or group ends up without oversight.

I think certainly training is at issue when it comes to police but I’m hard pressed at the moment to think of some measure which doesn’t ultimately boil down to trusting them not to abuse their authority. Not that there shouldn’t be anything done mind but that it’s always a tricky puzzle when it comes to those we give authority.

[Rozz]

I'm not defending Chauvin and McMichaels, both clearly were in the wrong. And earlier in the thread I said that I agreed Potter should have been put on trial, but I disagreed with the verdict, so I'm not saying there should be no court interference. Overall I think the main point of disagreement is whether police should be held to a higher or lower standard of behavior than common citizens. I am saying that police should be held to a lower standard by nature of the business they are in - to take a more extreme example, a heart surgeon is more likely to kill someone accidentally than your average joe. The reason for this is that some mistakes are inevitable, and I think if we make standards too high we won't have an effective police force because no one would want to be a cop.

I think the Potter case is a judgement call and I come down on the side of mercy, because I honestly doubt that this cop who worked on the force for 20 years, and was a training officer based on a good record, had any kind of bad intention towards the victim - particularly given her reaction on video to the outcome. I just don't see any benefit in putting her in jail.

The main contention you'll see is that surgeons already are held to a much higher standard and much stricter 'accident' margin. They also don't have the same level of of community failings across all races and cultures.

If a surgeon is bad, the hospital won't benefit as their reputation and ability to perform are all they have. If a cop is bad, the police just have another cop to replace them with and can write off the situation as coins in their quota as long a no one investigates. And people aren't usually willing to risk their jobs to investigate unless a superior is saving their own job by instigating.

People sign up and pay surgeons knowing about a risk they're willing to take to save their lives.
Meanwhile a lot of people are afraid a police officer will escalate a ticket to a gunshot wound.

The main issue at this point is time and history. There is widespread generational trauma with police that is hard to overcome and is often reinforced.

[D3thray]

I'm not defending Chauvin and McMichaels, both clearly were in the wrong. And earlier in the thread I said that I agreed Potter should have been put on trial, but I disagreed with the verdict, so I'm not saying there should be no court interference. Overall I think the main point of disagreement is whether police should be held to a higher or lower standard of behavior than common citizens. I am saying that police should be held to a lower standard by nature of the business they are in - to take a more extreme example, a heart surgeon is more likely to kill someone accidentally than your average joe. The reason for this is that some mistakes are inevitable, and I think if we make standards too high we won't have an effective police force because no one would want to be a cop.

I think the Potter case is a judgement call and I come down on the side of mercy, because I honestly doubt that this cop who worked on the force for 20 years, and was a training officer based on a good record, had any kind of bad intention towards the victim - particularly given her reaction on video to the outcome. I just don't see any benefit in putting her in jail.

I think that police may find it necessary to point a weapon at someone during the course of their job makes them more likely to kill someone on average than regular citizens just due to the nature of how guns work don’t you? Which means they’d be held to a higher standard?

[Coniferous]

The main contention you'll see is that surgeons already are held to a much higher standard and much stricter 'accident' margin. They also don't have the same level of of community failings across all races and cultures.

If a surgeon is bad, the hospital won't benefit as their reputation and ability to perform are all they have. If a cop is bad, the police just have another cop to replace them with and can write off the situation as coins in their quota as long a no one investigates. And people aren't usually willing to risk their jobs to investigate unless a superior is saving their own job by instigating.

People sign up and pay surgeons knowing about a risk they're willing to take to save their lives.
Meanwhile a lot of people are afraid a police officer will escalate a ticket to a gunshot wound.

Which, bluntly, is an irrational fear. There are 30,000 arrests per day in the United States (a number that excludes traffic tickets). There are 3 police shootings per day, so even if it were completely random, the odds of being shot are 1 in 10,000. And obviously, the vast, vast majority of shootings involve some form of resisting arrest. So if you don't resist arrest, you are virtually guaranteed to be ok. I'm not saying that there's no problem, I'm saying that it's waaayyy smaller than it is perceived to be. This is a huge country, and if you pick the worst case that happens every month, that's a 1 in a million event, not something that's indicative of a trend. We have a lot more information these days about everything that happens and the media has gotten really good at emphasizing the 1 in a million events, and we haven't yet learned how to process that with the inherent bias we have towards shocking individual events over broad statistics.

[Santti]

Hell, your #2 isn't even a factor; study after study has proven that there is no deterrence effect to harsher sentencing; What does matter is that you will be caught and sentenced appropriately. Your position on this is counterfactual. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hr...deterrence.pdf

Indeed.

We see this very plainly in US. Largest prison population, in both raw numbers and percentage of population. Harsh sentencing, and absolutely awful and abusive prison conditions, that is set to merely punish, not rehabilitate. And then you compare that to any other western country. Hell, not just western countries. Almost any other country.

[Coniferous]

Indeed.

We see this very plainly in US. Largest prison population, in both raw numbers and percentage of population. Harsh sentencing, and absolutely awful and abusive prison conditions, that is set to merely punish, not rehabilitate. And then you compare that to any other western country. Hell, not just western countries. Almost any other country.

Agreed. I believe the rationale in the US is that these people are irredeemable and too dangerous to be let out, not deterrence. But, particularly when it comes to drug crimes, that just hasn't worked at all - if a drug dealer goes to jail, another drug dealer will take his place, the issue is societal problems with drugs - drug use in this country is completely out of control.

I don't think this desire to punish everyone very harshly is productive.

[D3thray]

Unfortunately plenty enough people don't see it that way or see those things as a romanticized bonus.

There are plenty of cops that do their best and want to help, but actively get their careers threatened or ruined because of their corrupt peers. Same problem in the military.

I'm of the mind that police should also be held to the court of law when obstructing investigations due to severe negligence. It's disturbing how many cases you hear about missing or murdered people where the local police literally did nothing until pressured by the community or a superior. Then they wonder why people don't bother reporting things as much anymore.

On a more philosophical level you could argue that policing is a reflection of the society it polices. That is to say policing will change when the broader social attitude towards policing changes. Think of policing during the civil rights movement or even in the 90s with Rodney King. How we as individuals and as a society approach policing will govern how police act simply because some of us will become police.

- - - Updated - - -

Which, bluntly, is an irrational fear. There are 30,000 arrests per day in the United States (a number that excludes traffic tickets). There are 3 police shootings per day, so even if it were completely random, the odds of being shot are 1 in 10,000. And obviously, the vast, vast majority of shootings involve some form of resisting arrest. So if you don't resist arrest, you are virtually guaranteed to be ok. I'm not saying that there's no problem, I'm saying that it's waaayyy smaller than it is perceived to be. This is a huge country, and if you pick the worst case that happens every month, that's a 1 in a million event, not something that's indicative of a trend. We have a lot more information these days about everything that happens and the media has gotten really good at emphasizing the 1 in a million events, and we haven't yet learned how to process that with the inherent bias we have towards shocking individual events over broad statistics.

Even taking those statistics at face value, that’s not how you evaluate statistics. The most obvious problem with your particular line of reasoning in this post is that a National statistic is not necessarily representative of events at the local level. I don’t think anyone would argue for example that Chicago has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the country, more than beating the national average and approaching (and surpassing sadly last I checked) a country like Iraq.

So a national statistic may not show much problem on the surface but still mask problems at the local level.