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

[Rozz]

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.

That's if you're comparing national statistics to regional issues. And remember that not every poor interaction with a cop ends with a shooting or death.

Being assaulted physically and sexually, profiled, overly aggressive arrests, having your calls ignored, etc. They aren't irrational fears. They're a consistent issue when communities are trapped with a corrupt forces that only have to worry about a transfer or getting fired (just go work elsewhere) if that all.

Even just being male, you have to worry about cops giving you a harder time. Women worry about not being believed the first time or having their concerns downplayed. There is a trend of abuse and apathy that hurts their reputation and cops themselves.

[Coniferous]

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.

It's definitely indicative. There are certainly pockets where your risk is higher, but also there are mitigating factors to that. You might say, "well the problem is bigger in inner cities" but most arrests already happen in inner cities, so it's hard to believe that at a systemic, national level, it's significantly worse for that group. It's certainly higher if you're male, but again, most people arrested are male, so it can't be much higher. And again, the 1 in 10,000 stat is if the killings were entirely random - they're not, they're concentrated in the people who resist arrest. If, say, 75% of the victims resisted (likely a low number, I'd guess it's 90%), now our starting point for those who don't resist is 1 in 40,000 - which might get raised in certain localities but again, only on a very local level, because nationally the problem is small. With that as a baseline, it's hard to come up with a scenario where you're at any real level of risk if you don't resist.

[Rozz]

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.

The issue with that is that a community can evolve and changes faster than a police force can switch to rubber bullets.

And if not everyone on the police force are on board with the change, the community will see different faces and will spontaneously react to all of them. You get cop killers, gang formation, and donations all in the same day.

It's hard to say they're a reflection of the community or vice versa, because each one is constantly reacting to the other and one side has varied responses by the second.

[Coniferous]

That's if you're comparing national statistics to regional issues. And remember that not every poor interaction with a cop ends with a shooting or death.

Being assaulted physically and sexually, profiled, overly aggressive arrests, having your calls ignored, etc. They aren't irrational fears. They're a consistent issue when communities are trapped with a corrupt forces that only have to worry about a transfer or getting fired (just go work elsewhere) if that all.

Even just being male, you have to worry about cops giving you a harder time. Women worry about not being believed the first time or having their concerns downplayed. There is a trend of abuse and apathy that hurts their reputation and cops themselves.

I don't see how the answer to this is putting Kim Potter in jail. Cops are human. You can't expect them to be perfect. If lots of cops are accidentally shooting people instead of using their tazer, sure, that's a big issue. But if I'm a cop and I see this verdict, I don't think, "damn let me make doubly sure I know the difference between a tazer and a gun", I think, "damn, I need to get out of this profession, I don't want a job where a mistake lands me in jail."

[Rozz]

I don't see how the answer to this is putting Kim Potter in jail. Cops are human. You can't expect them to be perfect. If lots of cops are accidentally shooting people instead of using their tazer, sure, that's a big issue. But if I'm a cop and I see this verdict, I don't think, "damn let me make doubly sure I know the difference between a tazer and a gun", I think, "damn, I need to get out of this profession, I don't want a job where a mistake lands me in jail."

And maybe that's for the best for those in the profession that feel the same. Either leave it or encourage change in ways so lead to what you feel may be a more adequate punishment/ change.

[draynay]

I don't see how the answer to this is putting Kim Potter in jail. Cops are human.

We don't put humans in jail?

[Nurasu]

I wonder how much sympathy she would get if she wasn't a white woman, tbh.

[Endus]

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.

The idea that negative consequences are applied to those convicted of a crime is "bloodthirstiness" is just nonsense. No one was talking about corporeal punishment or any concept of vengeance. Just justice.

[quote]That's literally my point. A harsher punishment won't do anything to add to the deterrence. Being fired is enough.[/quote
If you limit it to "fired", you've said there is no legal punishment for the action whatsoever.

So, go back and see all the stuff in that article about how the surety of being caught and punished to some degree does serve as a deterrence.

Purely administrative penalties for things that any average citizen would face criminal charges for is not acceptable. It's the literal definition of corruption.

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?

Because she's demonstrated both the willingness and capacity to take a human life.

Literally, there's a corpse. That she created. Through her own willful negligence and incompetence.

Also, you don't get a pass on crimes just because you've gone decades without getting caught committing a crime.

It's a punishment. Whether it's "legal" or not doesn't matter to me.

That's an explanation that you're intentionally being unreasonable.

If the penalty isn't a legal punishment, then the action was not illegal and she should be able to do the same thing repeatedly without consequence. Is that your argument?

And again; you should be fired for things like "sassing a superior officer" or "showing up late half a dozen times without a good excuse" or "failing to file paperwork as required". The idea that it's "enough" for killing someone without justification is just complete lunacy.

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.

That's not how the law works. So no.

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

And she didn't kill this man "accidentally".

Again, negligence and accident are not synonyms. There's no personal responsibility for accidental deaths. There is for deaths due to negligence.

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.

"Hearsay" isn't relevant to discussions on administrative actions. And it's fully sufficient cause for firing people in any other profession.

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.

It's really not that difficult.

Don't train them to be abusive.
Fire them if they breach policy in any remotely serious manner.
Charge them criminally if said breaches amount to criminal conduct.

While there's a measure of trust involved in giving someone a badge, there's a maxim in science that applies here; "Trust, but verify". You were trusted, in that you were employed and given a badge. Your conduct and behaviour will, however, be monitored and verified on an ongoing basis. That's true in all kinds of work where you DON'T have such special powers and privileges; why wouldn't it be true for police?

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.

Same for teachers, though teachers in the USA have pretty minimal standards. I guarantee if you get a teacher who's accused of beating or molesting a student, that teacher's probably getting fired, even if it's just a he said/she said kind of deal with no confirming or exculpatory evidence to be had. Same doesn't apply to cops.

So it's not just higher-end professions. Hell, when I worked a shitty call center job for Nextel way back before they got bought by Sprint, my calls were monitored and my supervisor knew my average call times down to the second. I had to clock in/out to go take a leak. And I was making shit for money, there. Police are seeking weird special exemptions to normal procedures.

[Rozz]

This is a weird take that has no basis in reality. Most cops haven’t been members of the communities they police for a looong time. The issue isn’t the community’s response to the abuses of power cops are allowed to get away with. It’s the cops thinking they have the right to brutalize people they deal with. It’s the cops KNOWING hey can break the law without facing any consequences. We’ve seen a few held accountable recently, but the level of evidence required to convict them was far beyond what’s required for literally any other citizen who isn’t insanely wealthy.

- - - Updated - - -



She. Committed. Manslaughter. As such she wins 10-15 years. Stop acting like we should let people kill people so long as they claim after the fact that it was totes an accident. She was incredibly negligent. She had JUST received training on the use of a taser. She deserves every day she spends behind bars. Especially since she let the rookie she was training initiate the stop when she knew it wasn’t appropriate. She was teaching that rookie to abuse their power.

I'm responding to the idea that cops and their antics reflect the communities they police, because they're aren't mirrors of each other even in direct responses to recent events.

Not about what you wrote, not that I disagree with any of it.

[Endus]

I don't see how the answer to this is putting Kim Potter in jail. Cops are human. You can't expect them to be perfect.

Negligently killing a man is so far divorced from "perfect" that it's clear you're not posting in good faith.

What we're expecting is "a basic level of diligence and respect for their duties and the welfare of the public". Not "perfection".

If lots of cops are accidentally shooting people instead of using their tazer, sure, that's a big issue. But if I'm a cop and I see this verdict, I don't think, "damn let me make doubly sure I know the difference between a tazer and a gun", I think, "damn, I need to get out of this profession, I don't want a job where a mistake lands me in jail."

If you're a cop and that's what you think, I sure fuckin' hope you get the hell out of the job, because you're a danger to everyone around you. What you're expressing is willful negligence and a lack of basic consideration for public safety, and a feeling that they shouldn't face any repercussions for the harm they cause as a result.

[Coniferous]

I wonder how much sympathy she would get if she wasn't a white woman, tbh.

For what it's worth, here's me 6 weeks ago arguing against a harsh sentence for Henry Ruggs, a black man:

I don’t understand the “40 years is not enough” sentiment. Like, say it were 20 years. He gets out at 42, and at this point:

1. He’s much less of a danger. Older people don’t drive 150 miles an hour, recklessness fades with age.

2. The government can stop paying money to sustain him in jail, and presumably he becomes a tax paying citizen.

A common rationale for prison is as a deterrent… I have a hard time believing that a 40 year deterrent is much worse than a 20 year deterrent.

Absent anything else I think the only real rationale is some sort of bloodthirsty revenge motive. Meh. 20 years is fine. I could be convinced that 10 is ok to, depending on a risk assessment of the potential for a repeat offense.

- - - Updated - - -

Negligently killing a man is so far divorced from "perfect" that it's clear you're not posting in good faith.

What we're expecting is "a basic level of diligence and respect for their duties and the welfare of the public". Not "perfection".



If you're a cop and that's what you think, I sure fuckin' hope you get the hell out of the job, because you're a danger to everyone around you. What you're expressing is willful negligence and a lack of basic consideration for public safety, and a feeling that they shouldn't face any repercussions for the harm they cause as a result.

Ah now you're back to calling me dishonest, the old Endus standby. Guess it's time to depart again because once again you've lowered the conversation to namecalling.

[Endus]

Ah now you're back to calling me dishonest, the old Endus standby.

Is that really a problem with me, or is it a problem with a lot of people making fundamentally dishonest arguments?

But you decided to make this about tone-policing rather than demonstrating that my accusation was wrong, which kind of explains that you know I'm right.

Guess it's time to depart again because once again you've lowered the conversation to namecalling.

Pointing out that your argument was not made in good faith is not "name-calling".

[Coniferous]

Is that really a problem with me, or is it a problem with a lot of people making fundamentally dishonest arguments?

But you decided to make this about tone-policing rather than demonstrating that my accusation was wrong, which kind of explains that you know I'm right.



Pointing out that your argument was not made in good faith is not "name-calling".

This is so frustrating. Our discussions always end this way. You call me dishonest, as if you are somehow clairvoyant and can see my motives, then when I call you out on it you call it tone policing. Then you usually hit me with the sea lion comic for the trifecta. Nope. Bye. Not going to put up with your shit.

[Endus]

This is so frustrating. Our discussions always end this way. You call me dishonest, as if you are somehow clairvoyant and can see my motives, then when I call you out on it you call it tone policing. Then you usually hit me with the sea lion comic for the trifecta. Nope. Bye. Not going to put up with your shit.

It keeps going this way because you refuse to defend your position. You just act affronted that someone would call you out, and storm off.

I don't need to be "clairvoyant", I just need to see A> what you post, and B> what the facts are. I can't read your mind, I can only go by what you actually post. When that's so wildly unreasonable given the facts in question, that's when I comment that your argument is not made honestly. Why you made that dishonest argument is really not relevant to my position and not something I've commented on or speculated about.

If I'm somehow wrong, back yourself up. You don't. You just act affronted and storm off, as if I'm the villain for saying your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.

Again; if I repeatedly call people out for dishonest arguments, is the problem really with me, or is it with the people who keep using misleading arguments? If I'm wrong, explain it. I've made mistakes, and I've copped to them when I have. This tactic you're taking convinces me I'm not making a mistake, here, though. It's just a shift in tactic to try and present yourself as the victim for someone daring to criticise your public claims.

[PhaelixWW]

Good lord. Have people suddenly forgotten that manslaughter is an actual thing?

Have people forgotten that the reasonable person standard exists for a reason?

Was it an accident? Sure. Would a reasonable person have made the same decisions that led to the accident? No? Then it's criminal negligence leading to the death of a person, which is textbook manslaughter.

And sorry, someone's going to prison because the third reason to send someone to prison is as a punishment for (and a consequence of) their actions.

Someone may ignore the fact that manslaughter exists, they may ignore the fact that the reasonable person standard exists, and they may ignore the fact that there are more than two reasons to send someone to prison, but ignoring all three is just unbelievably dishonest.

[Coniferous]

It keeps going this way because you refuse to defend your position. You just act affronted that someone would call you out, and storm off.

I don't need to be "clairvoyant", I just need to see A> what you post, and B> what the facts are. I can't read your mind, I can only go by what you actually post. When that's so wildly unreasonable given the facts in question, that's when I comment that your argument is not made honestly. Why you made that dishonest argument is really not relevant to my position and not something I've commented on or speculated about.

If I'm somehow wrong, back yourself up. You don't. You just act affronted and storm off, as if I'm the villain for saying your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.

Again; if I repeatedly call people out for dishonest arguments, is the problem really with me, or is it with the people who keep using misleading arguments? If I'm wrong, explain it. I've made mistakes, and I've copped to them when I have. This tactic you're taking convinces me I'm not making a mistake, here, though. It's just a shift in tactic to try and present yourself as the victim for someone daring to criticise your public claims.

The problem is with your and your willingness to jump immediately to "must be a troll" or "must be dishonest", whatever. I think that's pretty clear. "Explain how you're not being dishonest", by the way, is the same as "when did you stop beating your wife". It's not worth engaging with. I'm sure you know the online term for it as you seem to know all the others.

[Endus]

The problem is with your and your willingness to jump immediately to "must be a troll" or "must be dishonest", whatever. I think that's pretty clear.

Again; if they are being dishonest, how is that not the appropriate response?

"Explain how you're not being dishonest", by the way, is the same as "when did you stop beating your wife".

No, it would be the same as "explain how you're not beating your wife (in this video/picture/whatever)." You could say "we're into BDSM and here's her saying so". You could point out you're both into martial arts and sparring in that shot. You could say you were roughhousing. You could at any point get your wife to jump in on this. Tons of potential responses that would put me in my place, in that hypothetical.

It's not like I'm popping the statement off without cause. I clearly explained why that deduction was arrived at.

[Coniferous]

Again; if they are being dishonest, how is that not the appropriate response?



No, it would be the same as "explain how you're not beating your wife (in this video/picture/whatever)." You could say "we're into BDSM and here's her saying so". You could point out you're both into martial arts and sparring in that shot. You could say you were roughhousing. You could at any point get your wife to jump in on this. Tons of potential responses that would put me in my place, in that hypothetical.

It's not like I'm popping the statement off without cause. I clearly explained why that deduction was arrived at.

Nope, we're done. Is gaslighting the right word for what you're doing? I'm not sure.

[beanman12345]

This is so frustrating. Our discussions always end this way. You call me dishonest, as if you are somehow clairvoyant and can see my motives, then when I call you out on it you call it tone policing. Then you usually hit me with the sea lion comic for the trifecta. Nope. Bye. Not going to put up with your shit.

Should just start and end with the sealion comic.

[Endus]

Nope, we're done. Is gaslighting the right word for what you're doing? I'm not sure.

Since when is calling out a dishonest argument "gaslighting"?

You've made no attempt to demonstrate that I was in any way wrong. You're just complaining that I pointed it out.